My code is actually in the public domain under the FPDL. Its a really license nice user, you can get it here

I saw that but I would rather there be at least some kind of push to keep the software open. Plus i wanted a no-liability clause for morons who think nothing is their fault.

Then you clearly don't want true freedom

How are licenses legally binding? Just copy paste the source without the license and you're good to go, it's not like you signed a contract with your name and all

I agree. So I just made it optional. Plus you can verbatum steal my document and keep the name and claim you made it. I will be (((annoyed))) but you can do it.

true freedom is the ability to give up some of your freedoms voluntarily

>freedom includes violating freedom

What do you mean?

Claiming you have done something when it wasn't you who did it is lying to a costumer. Deceit is coercion. I think as long as you obtained your copy in a non coercive fashion then you can redistribute it however you want, but you shouldn't be able to claim it's yours as that would be deceiving your clients

I agree, and I never said you SHOULD. I just said you can.

Well you can expect to be ethically v& or fined/sued. The night watchman state would facilitate this, or your local landlord/community you've entered contract with would properly deal with you under the terms of your contract if you're living in an ancap society.

Sued for what? What would I do? Im not saying i will steal their things. Plus the works under the document and the document itself is in the public domain so you physically cannot steal them. There is nothing to sue or get sued over.

You aren't being sued for "stealing". You would get sued for lying to your clients for personal gain (by claiming you have done something you haven't, that is directly related to the content you are providing), even if you don't charge your clients.

True freedom is doing whatever the fuck you want without being dictated of what you should do, which WTFPL warrants.

What are you talking about? Lying about what? I agree with you, lying about what you made is annoying and wrong. Why do you keep talking about that like I support it and that my license forces it upon people? Its up to idiots whether or not they wish to steal program source. Plus, you cannot be sued for claiming you made something when that something was made in the public domain. I couldnt care less about what happens with scarce goods in this convo because software is not a scarce good.

Or the FPDL which also helps incite user freedoms without taking away dev freedoms by simply asking that you keep the source open.

absolute freedom (under non naive set theory) isn't ethical though, you need some restrictions like not allowing to violate other peoples freedom.
you said it would annoying to say that you made something when you haven't, but don't agree that it should be illegal. i agree with literally everything you're saying except that. the point is that claiming you made a program when you haven't is deceiving people that download it/copy the source, and deceit is a form of coercion (giving them the carrot instead of the stick), it literally doesn't matter that what you're distributing is a scarce resource or if it is infinitely abundant

not violate other peoples freedom *if they don't want to

Fake news. I heard it was 3 marijuanas s/he was injected with

>not using xir
user, you're never gonna make it

I also dont agree that it should be illegal, which is why I made a public domain license, so it cant be illegal for software under the license. Public domain is fine with deceit. Lying is wrong, i agree. So where do we disagree? I apologize if i made it seem like i thought that stealing that software should be illegal, i didnt mean to make it come out like that.

> assuming an all powerful diety uses gender normative pronouns

I think lying for personal gain should be illegal in general, regardless of license. If coercion is using force for personal gain, then deceit is the other side of the coin by using illegitimate seduction for personal gain. Think of it this way, one is forcing you to do something with a gun to the head, another is forcing you to do something with the promise of something that you will never receive. This always applies unless you specifically enter contract with someone you are distributing to and agree that it's okay for the other person to state it's made by him.

I genuinely believe that there is another person trying to jump into the argument and we are just arguing points that the other didnt make so to save all of us time i will end this here.

let me clarify the license part - i don't think they should be legally binding in the first place because there is no explicit consent from both parties with full relevant knowledge. explicit consent would be either written or voiced/video taped, and for large scale solutions there could be companies that are relegated this authority that can mass stamp contracts
nah mate it's just me i'm just a bit drunk and all over the place, sorry if i'm confusing you. Sometimes I change up how I write to mess with the botnet

Is there a license that says if you modify+redistribute, then you need to share the code, otherwise, you can do whatever you want?

The GPL, but this is meant to just ask you to do it when you distribute it.

nope, that's libertinism. Go study philosophy you fucking cuck. Taking away freedom is not a freedom (thus, impeding the taking of freedom is not taking away freedom, because the aggression wasn't freedom to begin with). Your freedom ends where the others' start, because negating his freedom contradicts your own, as you're both rational beings equal before ethics gaze.
fuck you, commie.

What if someone wants you to take away their freedoms, and provides explicit consent to which they want removed for a specific duration (which can be forever)?

if it's a legitimate contract, you could ethically give up some freedoms (on a free decision to use a contract). It would still be immoral to do so, as it's not a good thing in a beauty sense. This does not apply to modern licensing and eulas, as they aren't legitimate contracts (not written in an explicit way for the end user to agree to, it's like expecting you to agree with something written in chinese). It could only apply to a different method of contract that is explicit and not written in a way that only lawyers can understand.
Also, in this world, GPL licenses would also be ethical, and would be better in moral terms for preserving freedoms, and excluding the necessity to give up them.

We have practically identical philosophies then. Based.

But you give consent once you download the source code under that license

is it explicit consent with all parties involved having all relevant information? no. I can download the source without providing consent, even if the button says I have to agree to download

That's their entire method. International law considers marking a checkbox consent, while companies know really well that nobody will read terms (even if they did, most wouldn't understand), and won't need to consent to the actual terns

Just like you can sign a contract without needing to follow its terms, as you didnt give your explicit permission. All you did was write your name.

so if i simply download it alternatively its ok? this is pretty much a "what's legally binding" debate right now. i'm way past tupsy now so what do you guys think should be a solution? or is it fine the way it is

If you download it alternatively, then I believe that it is okay since you didnt agree to anything yourself. The person who agreed to the license should be the only one at fault IMHO.

we agree then i think on that

Right. If i drop a copyrighted book (on a legitimate contract) on the floor and someone else gets it, that person is not bound by a contract and can redistribute freely

Different user here, but what do you think about the concept of living property? Not as in slavery, but as in how a parent has limited ownership of their child, or how someone has limited ownership over their sentient pet. Living property status would guarantee some rights to the owner over the property from birth of the child (because it has no ability to consent to any form of contract at that age), or sentient pets at the moment of ethical acquisition since pretty much every animal with the exception of humans does not have the ability to consent to contracts. This would cover things like choosing where your kid goes to school or where you take your dog for a walk, but obviously not include things that would harm them such as forced labor or leaving them to starve. So it's like a mixture of responsibilities and rights over "living property".

Animals can be property, they aren't rational/sapient/conscious and ethics doesn't apply to them. Children are potentially rational and can't be property. Parents are Responsible for them and must watch over them, but can't treat them like property.

You didnt agree to it, the government did when they recognize it to be copyrighted and you did since you are under the government. And yes, i think you can redistribute freely, but because of the copyright, you cannot say that you made it, and you need to give credit.

If ethics dont apply to animals that arent rational etc. then can they be abused?
What about kids with severe mental disabilities? Can they be owned?

>ethics
>government law
sorry, but unless we live in a minarchist hayek-like demarchy guided by ethical law, i'm not even considering that.

being human makes you protected by ethics already, as they still have the potential. Animals should be protected by private property laws. Sadly, ethics can't be applied to them, but mistreating them is still highly immoral and people should discriminate those who attack animals.

Well there is a case to be made regarding animal rationality. I don't think there is a truly objective measure to define sapience, so we should err on the side of caution and guarantee certain protections for any animal that exhibits some form of sense of self, intelligence and/or will to live. This would obviously exclude bacteria, pretty much most fish/clams/etc., insects, and so on.
>children can't be property
I agree, that's why I made a special case for them to be "Living Property" and property in name only. It's a system that would guarantee them certain protections (otherwise there is no logical reason for parents to have responsibility over them) as well as guarantee certain privileges to the parents. To have the potential to be rational I think needs to be protected (which would mean abortions are a big no from me, only okay in the case where it threatens the mother's life), that's why I've come up with this system. As well as what this guy said:

Haha what if he's dick didn't stop growing and he came so hard he came out of his own dick inside out

Attached: image0.jpg (740x1132, 71K)

Another way to explain it would be as an implicit, universal and immutable contract with someone that cannot at the moment consent to anything.

I would not use this license because it's vague and ambiguous.

>Keep all source code in this project open.

It's not clear to me what that means, both legally and practically speaking. Please leave the license-writing to the lawyers and don't attempt to write your own without consulting one.

And the contract would end when the implicit agree-er can demonstrate they are fully capable of consenting to end this aforementioned contract. This would entail asking questions as to what leaving the contract would mean and by answering correctly would prove full autonomy. I still haven't come up with a way to terminate the contract from the parents side though, in the case someone decides to fake not knowing the consequences of leaving to purposefully stay within "Living Property" status.
I'm not sure how would technology facilitate this as well (this is for the jannies).

Did you read the license? Its not saying you legally have to keep it open so it doesnt need to define it. Its ASKING you to. Its up to your own interpritation whatever the hell "keep all the source code in this project open" means. Its in the public domain, so do what you want.

Then I see even less point to this license. If you want to beg people to do something then there are a hundred other places you should do it first before doing it in a legal document.

I'm the first user and my post had nothing to do with the license the second user was talking about.

What should I call it instead?

Then there is no point to the wtfpl or the unlicense. My license says that everything under it is in the public domain just like them. Mine adds requests to give people suggestions on how to now be claude devs.

How did you know that? Are you xir?

user please don't tell anyone

yes, 5g tren