We now note that that we do not waive our attribution requirements for Spritely Goblins, which are present in Apache v2 (and for that matter, CC BY, CC BY-SA, and most FOSS licenses) https://codeberg.org/spritely/goblins/pulls/998/files
-
@ArneBab Calling a set of laws technical (in contrast to what it imo actually is: a social technology) when the only way it can be enacted (e.g. in contrast to cryptography) is through courts, seems absurd to me.
-
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
@cwebber i'm an artist/academic/educator and i consider making foss to be a part of my practice. any kind of attribution helps me to make the case that my work has "impact" which in turn helps me to keep my job. a lot of foss projects that are related to academia in some way will request that papers resulting from research that makes use of the project include an actual bibliographical citation—i assume for similar reasons. tbh i think this prominent foss person is full of it
-
@cwebber I agree. I extremely dislike copyright (and would like it to be abolished even if that makes copyleft licenses (even more) useless), but I think that attribution and often also proper citation/references is extremely important.
-
-
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
@cwebber absolutely, attribution is the most important part of the whole thing. Citing your sources seems to me to be one of the most basic parts of human decency.
-
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
@cwebber I care about attribution
-
@LunaDragofelis This is not about DRM. It is about only sharing obfuscated, compiled code that you may be able to mod, but not to improve efficiently.
Or only sharing a squashed image while you yourself use the multilayer source instead that you did not share.
Or only sharing the final encoded version of a song while you retain the multitrack master to rework it regularly.
Or only sharing low-quality screenshots of a book you create from Emacs orgmode sources you keep private.
@fogti @cwebber -
@cwebber absolutely, attribution is the most important part of the whole thing. Citing your sources seems to me to be one of the most basic parts of human decency.
-
@ArneBab Calling a set of laws technical (in contrast to what it imo actually is: a social technology) when the only way it can be enacted (e.g. in contrast to cryptography) is through courts, seems absurd to me.
@fogti I’m not talking about laws. See https://rollenspiel.social/@ArneBab/117441148957636180
-
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
@cwebber i don’t code in any meaningful sense (thankfully) but unless the point is some sort of ephemeral anonymity, attribution is generally the thing i care most about with the art i do put out into the world.
-
@cwebber attribution seems like the most basic social reciprocity available and, as you mentioned, probably the most important. "where did you get *awesome idea from*? "oh *awesom idea* came from *this person*. aren't they neat?"
@xinniw @cwebber I've drawn this comparison before, and I'm sure I will again, but the very first Easter Eggs in video games were... credits.
Why were they credits? Because Atari didn't want to include credit to the people who made the game. And you can't tell that story without it being intuitively obvious that Atari were being indefensible assholes. And now every video game has credits in it - most people won't pay too much attention to the contents, but the record is still important to the people who actually worked to make the thing, and to the people who love those people. The sky didn't fall from credits existing. The world got a little better actually.
But the capitalist incentive to alienate people from their labor, and consumers from the humanity of the people making their stuff, has never *stopped.* LLMs are just the next chapter of the story, the throughline of indefensible assholes that want to model labor as anonymous and interchangeable cogs, especially erasing minorities from history.
-
@cwebber attribution seems like the most basic social reciprocity available and, as you mentioned, probably the most important. "where did you get *awesome idea from*? "oh *awesom idea* came from *this person*. aren't they neat?"
-
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
@cwebber and I feel some people really tell on themselves with their attitudes towards consent and truth
-
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
@cwebber don't give a shit about copyright but yes attribution is meaningful to me - as others have said respect is important, plus i want to give people ways to learn more if i learned. we exist in a social web and recognizing that web is valuable for us and others
-
@fogti I’m not talking about laws. See https://rollenspiel.social/@ArneBab/117441148957636180
@ArneBab Having source available is neither sufficient (although/especially lack of attribution makes it worse), nor necessary (due to the ability to disassemble code).
And given that the "open source" is very often still based upon paywalled papers and standards, and often also hidden documentation (/ documentation licensed in a way that makes usage in source code difficult), I don't consider it sufficient anymore. It isn't sufficiently pervasive.
Source code is an intermediate representation
-
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
I tend to release things under ISC/MIT/BSD (2-clause) type licenses because attribution is nice—theoretically required by the licenses—and more significant to me than any share-alike terms. But in the end, I'm more interested in solving problems and sharing those solutions. And similar to @datarama's insightful reply, "as long as 1. you don't claim that you made my work, 2. you don't claim that I made your work."
-
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
@cwebber It is an interesting thought & problem.
The issue with any licensing is firstly enforceability & legality. Just because you put something in a license file doesn't mean you can enforce (as in courts would rule in your favour).
Big OSS licenses have the advantage of being legally verified and supported by precedent.
-
@ArneBab Having source available is neither sufficient (although/especially lack of attribution makes it worse), nor necessary (due to the ability to disassemble code).
And given that the "open source" is very often still based upon paywalled papers and standards, and often also hidden documentation (/ documentation licensed in a way that makes usage in source code difficult), I don't consider it sufficient anymore. It isn't sufficiently pervasive.
Source code is an intermediate representation
@fogti I disagree.
Having the source available may not be sufficient, but it is often necessary.
Disassembling code does not recover comments and also misses a lot of other context.
But I gave that argument in a more general way in the other toot:
https://rollenspiel.social/@ArneBab/117441148957636180Source code is the preferred form of making modifications to something – as the GPLv3 succinctly defines it.
-
@cwebber It is an interesting thought & problem.
The issue with any licensing is firstly enforceability & legality. Just because you put something in a license file doesn't mean you can enforce (as in courts would rule in your favour).
Big OSS licenses have the advantage of being legally verified and supported by precedent.
@ilia These clauses already exist in prominent, and previously enforced, licenses. We didn't add anything, just called attention to the clauses.
(And yes, I have done a substantial amount of work on FOSS licensing issues.)
-
@cwebber attribution seems like the most basic social reciprocity available and, as you mentioned, probably the most important. "where did you get *awesome idea from*? "oh *awesom idea* came from *this person*. aren't they neat?"
