Licensing all my code under MIT + Trans Rights is a fun and silly little thing. I don't understand the consequences of
The above copyright notice, this permission notice, and the affirmation that TRANS RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
Nor do I have the means to even bring consequences. But it's a silly little thing that might be a legal problem for someone else anyways.
@ariadne Is the FSF allowed to do that? According to the ncurses FAQ, they arenāt:
For what itās worth, the agreement which we (original ncurses developers) made with the Free Software Foundation reads in part:
The Foundation promises that all distribution of the Package, or of any work ābased on the Packageā, that takes place under the control of the Foundation or its agents or assignees, shall be on terms that explicitly and perpetually permit anyone possessing a copy of the work to which the terms apply, and possessing accurate notice of these terms, to redistribute copies of the work to anyone on the same terms. These terms shall not restrict which members of the public copies may be distributed to. These terms shall not require a member of the public to pay any royalty to the Foundation or to anyone else for any permitted use of the work they apply to, or to communicate with the Foundation or its agents in any way either when redistribution is performed or on any other occasion.
As is well known, that precludes relicensing to the GPL in any version, since it would place restrictions on which programs may link to the libraries. That would deprive a substantial fraction of the current user base of the use of subsequent versions of the software. No such restriction exists in the ncurses license.
⦠but I donāt see how that agreement precludes relicensing to the (L)GPL, as it says nothing about placing restrictions on which programs may link to ncurses.
(Also, ncurses has been part of GNU for a long time, why would they relicense now?)
@zaire I agree that the bazaar development model is better, but calling AOSP not open source because itās not developed in public is simply wrong.
Although in this case itās actually worse because Google does release updates more immediately, but only to OEMs. AOSP isnāt proprietary but the version of Android that most people run is.
@ariadne Iāve been reminded of several more unfixed major bugs:
Iām pretty sure jrmu knows about all this but does not care enough to switch to a less broken ircd.
@ariadne In practice none of this actually applies and pissnet is better coordinated than IRCNow. Thereās no single staff channel (equivalent of pissnetās #opers), and NgIRCd is horribly broken in ways too numerous to list (but the founder, jrmu, refuses to give up on NgIRCd and suggests that if you donāt like it you should start another network with another ircd and somehow bridge it).
Hereās a far-from-complete list of the ways in which NgIRCd is broken:
MODE +o nick1 nick2 nick3 nick4, resulting in desyncs.&SERVER) to receive snotes.It is literally the worst ircd I have ever used.