Comrade Angles @Angle@witches.town

@aeonofdiscord Well, they can't take the existing code and make it unavailable, but they can reap the benefits of the existing code, and then can add their own proprietary alterations. :/

YOU PAY FOR THAT WITH YOUR TAXES

https://satwcomic.com/every-time

@ivesen Huh, alright. So I guess with hidden files you might have more of a mess than I do. Very well, I concede. :/

@h I'm not saying that the efforts you made are seriously flawed? I'm saying there are circumstances where it makes sense to use a GPL license. We do seem to be talking past each other though, so we probably should cut the conversation here. :/

@ivesen 16 items not within folders, that is. :/

@ivesen But most of those are in folder. Like, my own home folder has 16 items in it if I don;t show the hidden ones, or way more if I do show the hidden ones. :/

@h I mean, we saw basically the thing I worried about with mastodon with counter.social, except without implementing anything new or keeping their code closed source. So I wouldn;t be so sure. :/

@ivesen You only have 13 items. That's nothing. I've seen it get so much worse... :P

@ivesen You sweet summer child. :P

Or should I say, internet videos for a variety of platforms, including youtube? :/

Aaaargh. Now I want to make youtube videos, but I already have too many things too do. Life is suffering. :/

@h No no, I agree. I was outlining the circumstances under which you might want to use a GPL instead of an MIT, not necessarily arguing that those circumstances apply to the code you wrote. :/

@h Ehhh, see, there are definite rewards to controlling a centralized platform. Which means that anyone who wants to claim those rewards is in competition with anyone who wants a decentralized approach. Like, suppose someone took the mastodon source, cut out the federation, implemented a ton of cool new features, and tried to become the next twitter? As it is, that's impossible because of the AGPL, but under an MIT license that could happen. :/

@h It's less a problem and more just me being nitpicky, I'll admit. It's just that I don't see the point of dual licensing if it doesn't change anything from a legal perspective. :/

@h no no, this has nothing to do with you and your code. You can license however you like. I'm perfectly happen to use your MIT licensed code.The conversation just drifted over into reasons for using GPL instead of MIT. XD

@h I mean, yeah? But constraining freedoms is unavoidable. Your freedom to swing your fist ends with nose (Or more realistically speaking, my personal space), and theres not much getting around that. Similarly, your right to use my code ends where the strictures of my license begin. If I licensed it MIT and someone took it, made it it closed source, and then used to to outcompete my projects, that wouldn't be very nice either. :/

@h That depends on tbe code. Most of my code that's not necessarily true for. :/

@h That would be me putting open source first, under the assumption that if they won't make their code open source, then they won't help decentralization. :/

@pho4cexa @h It depends o the circumstance. For others works, I don't terribly care - hence why I said there was no difference between MIT VS MIT + GPL, because I can do all the same things with them. For my own works however, I am probably going to want to apply the relevant GPL license, so as to prevent someone from taking my code, forking it, and keeping their fork secret. :/

@pho4cexa @h I saw the part about some people wanting to avoid anything that's not GPL... But if it's dual licensed with MIT, then isn't it effectively not GPL, regardless of what the license says? :/

On another note, it looks like a cool bit of code. I haven't done much with IPFS yet, but I'll take a look at it. XD