I thought The Guardian was against fascism, yet here they are pushing for corporations to act like the police. Or even more like the police, beyond keeping IP logs, message histories, transaction histories, and employing 15,000 workers to monitor their users.
Does it in fact "rely" on it, or does that merely expand its scope? Even if its claims of what is "derivative" were diminished to exclude linking/API calls, the GPL would survive, albeit as slightly less viral.
The GPL is quite conscious of the fact that several of its terms would be useless in a sensible copyright regime.
That said, although both are "broad" they are quite different concepts. The linked "interoperability" cases involve 3 works/parties A, B, and C, and the EFF's claim is that A should have no rights regarding B+C just because B+A existed first. OTOH, the GPL's relevants to linking is that A has rights regarding A+B.
The US definition of "derivative work" is quite broad, and seems to cover linking just fine.
The Berne Convention, however, doesn't mention "derivative works", only specific traditional examples thereof, so it's possible that countries other than the US may have implemented it in such a way that linking doesn't count as a derived work. TODO look up "compilation" (in the copyright sense) and "collective work", which might actually be more relevant for linking?
Edit: "GPL is MAD in the copyright cold war" is a good phrase to describe things.
> The US definition of "derivative work" is quite broad, and seems to cover linking just fine.
the problem is the GPL view seems doubtful and has not only bad implications for software copyright but copyright of... well literally anything else. I mean, remember what linking actually is (especially dynamic linking), you're basically just making references to certain things.
the analogy that I can best describe is this: if you're writing a paper on something whatever, and you link to a page number of a book, that doesn't make your paper a derivative work of that thing per se.
if I say in the middle of my novel new text on foobars and fozzinators, hey "book A page 32" has instructions for how to confabulate your fozzinator or "book B page 42" has the values needed to valienate your foobaz, referring to those things in general makes no sense to consider this originally authored book a derivative of A, B, or A and B.
or for a more concrete example, saying Microsoft should be the final authority on who can interoperate with their products or saying that the people who publish research are automatically derivative works of other peoples research[1] papers or people who write articles can't even REFER to other articles in such a way.
[1]: research itself may come from derivative ideas of course, but I'm talking about the copyrightable elements here; i.e. not the facts necessarily presented within, but rather how such facts are presented and laid out. copyright does not cover facts (true or false[2]), but your presentation of such facts are.
I would dispute that pretty heavily. They're not, and obviously have never, claimed copyright over the DLL you made or whatever, nor the entire concept of linking to Windows APIs (as an example).
Mostly because that's, like the GPL, currently a way to get laughed out of court.
Well no, it doesn't rely on it (as in, if they didn't use this argument, the licence would still hold up quite well) but it definitely has an impact. For example, see GNU Readline which was explicitly licenced as GPL to encourage virality with the linking clause.
Being mad about this is like being mad the thief who stole your belongings then pawned them. The crime was spying on you in the first place. Automakers should not have any data, to share or sell or give to law enforcement with a subpoena.
Title is misleading - users can pick additional filters, but can't opt out of any of Bluesky's own censorship without going to a third-party server entirely.
No, other clients -- including forks of our open source client -- can opt out of our censorship (if we're really going to call it that). I mention infrastructure takedowns in my other comment. If we ever cross the line on that layer, you can run your own infra, which again is open-source.
> our censorship (if we're really going to call it that)
With the possible exception of spam filtering, yes, we should call it that. I'm sure I would agree with many of those censorship decisions, such as e.g. YCombinators decision to censor things harming intellectual curiosity, but just because we agree with some censorship, doesn't make it not censorship. It's important to keep language free of little lies like using milder terms when we want to present something in a better light, because these little lies add up and become habits of both speech and thought.
Are people confused by why we mean by moderation? Did we lie and call it "speech amplification?" I should think people would be significantly more confused if we began talking about our robust solution to censorship, because by connotation people interpret censorship to be the suppression of criticism and interpret moderation to be the suppression of disruptive behavior, even if by denotation they both involve the same thing.
If we're going to discuss the intricacies of language, we should factor in its connotations as deeply as the denotations. If you think an act of moderation or a company policy has crossed the line into censorship, I think it's more than appropriate to say so. In fact, I'd encourage it. But speaking personally, I don't want to chat in a forum without moderation, and I don't think you add clarity by casting such a wide net. I think you lose it.
Censorship is a broad thing, usually mandated by a government. Individuals or even companies making decisions for their own platforms is not the same thing.
Yes it is a broad thing, and yes government and private censorship are not the same, but they are both censorship, at least according to the wikipedia and ACLU definitions [1,2].
And given the volume of posts censored and users banned by social media, where most public debate happens these days, most censorship is now by private companies.
People are perhaps not so enthusiastic about giving away their countries just so multinational companies with no loyalty to them don't leave. On the other hand, China, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea all manage to have highly-successful tech industries (tech, not ads and social media) with near-zero immigration.
Those countries have much stronger educational systems (at least K-12) and a much stronger devotion to education than the US.
On the other hand, the US benefits massively from its research universities, which attract large numbers of top-quality graduate students from around the world, many of whom remain in the US after their studies and make up much of the tech workforce.
> giving away their countries
How does immigration of highly skilled tech workers in any way "give away the country"?
You can also create violent and copyrighted images in MS Paint. Why should our tools police us? And what is the alternative - teach AI to perform a fair-use test on any output that touches copyrighted material?
> cultivating the mentality that lying in the trenches for your country/culture/values might be necessary.
That would mean cultivating the mentality that a country is more than just an economic platform, because that's not something anyone is willing to die for. It means cultivating the dreaded nationalism.
> That would mean cultivating the mentality that a country is more than just an economic platform
Is it just that, or does it perhaps protect also other rights? Is the economic prosperity the only reason one might prefer living in Germany over Russia?
Point taken. But what about in Germany over Canada? Or Italy? Or Spain, or Australia, or the US, or New Zealand, or UK, or Iceland, or Taiwan, or Japan or... there are lots of mostly free countries (so long as you don't engage in the growing category of hate-speech) one can run to, once freed from the concepts of homeland and nation.
Will your whole family and friends run too? Will you move your whole social life with you or are you ready to accept your life will be torn apart?
Once Germany gets submitted without a fight, how long will it take until Italy is attacked? I mean, with this "running away" philosophy it's pretty easy to take countries without facing a resistance now.
A small price compared to dying in war. I'm not saying it's the right choice, but if you have no attachment to your country and people beyond it being a comfortable place to live, that's the choice most will make.
Let me present you an alternative. Europe can build up a credible defense capability which will provide a strong deterrence to Russia. In that case you don't have to die in the trenches and you don't have to spend your life running away from the aggressor.
Nazi Germany did not invade Switzerland, USSR did not invade Finland (after suffering horrible losses in the Winter war), even though both had their own claims on them, because the costs of such an adventure were considered too high. A big part of this deterrence was a population willing to fight to defend their homeland.
> Nazi Germany did not invade Switzerland, USSR did not invade Finland
To be fair these aren't exactly the most relevant examples. On paper the balance of power economically (and military to a somewhat lesser degree) is certainly on the side of the EU/NATO. It would be relative pretty cheap to invest enough just to deter a second rate country (besides nukes) like Russia.
Is Italy threatening to nuke or invade Germany because the Germans won't let them annex Austria? I don't think so..
Or are you suggesting that people can just move to another place when their home country gets taken over by fascist imperialists? Because that doesn't really scale that well...
> There's other ways to find websites, like HN and word-of-mouth;
The problem is that, to get traffic to your site (i.e. have your speech heard), it doesn't help if you use these other ways to find websites. You need others to use these ways. And 99% of them won't. I'm all for advocating widespread change of these habits, but that's a society-wide effort, not something a single website can do, much less one de-listed by Google.
