Did some cleaning up.
This commit is contained in:
parent
62d7162c7d
commit
f93ac48919
|
|
@ -89,3 +89,5 @@ depending on external JavaScript which depends on non-XHTML, like the FSF
|
|||
widget on the propaganda page, might cease to work).
|
||||
|
||||
[[./links][Propaganda]]
|
||||
|
||||
Should I go to HTML 5? I don't really care.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Niels goes by the nicknames "ngws" and "nqpz" (and a few others).
|
|||
** Contact
|
||||
|
||||
Niels can be contacted at [[mailto:ngws@metanohi.name][ngws@metanohi.name]]. You can also find him as ngws
|
||||
in #hongabar on irc.freenode.net.
|
||||
in #hongabar and #diku on irc.freenode.net.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
** Things used by Niels
|
||||
|
|
@ -128,6 +128,7 @@ Most of these I don't use. Some might be dead.
|
|||
+ [[https://savannah.gnu.org/users/nqpz][GNU Savannah]]
|
||||
+ [[http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/User:Schabeindividuum][Uncyclopedia]] (don't take this one seriously)
|
||||
+ [[https://github.com/nqpz][GitHub]] (I don't like GitHub that much, but I use it sometimes)
|
||||
+ [[https://twitter.com/ngwwws][Twitter]] (not really using it)
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
** Keys
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -8,13 +8,11 @@ Free culture is about sharing and mixing creative works, often under
|
|||
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft][copyleft]]. It encompasses pictures, video, audio, text and similar types of
|
||||
works.
|
||||
|
||||
It is good.
|
||||
It is good, although not necessarily easy to produce.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
** External links
|
||||
|
||||
+ [[http://freedomdefined.org/Definition][Definition of Free Cultural Works]]
|
||||
+ [[http://freeculture.org/][freeculture.org]]
|
||||
+ The [[http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/][Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike license]] --- a widely used
|
||||
copyleft license approved for free cultural works. Wikipedia uses this
|
||||
license. This website uses it as well in many places.
|
||||
+ [[http://creativecommons.org/][Creative Commons]]
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -67,10 +67,10 @@ programmers who do not use software that allows sharing and modification tend
|
|||
to do.
|
||||
|
||||
Fourth, if a program cannot be studied, and if that program contains code for
|
||||
reading from and writing to files in special formats --- e.g. the Microsoft
|
||||
Word format --- people are forced to use that program if they have a file in
|
||||
such a format (yes, OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice have good support for such
|
||||
non-free formats, but not full support).
|
||||
reading from and writing to files in special formats --- e.g. the Microsoft Word
|
||||
format --- people are forced to use that program if they have a file in such a
|
||||
format (yes, LibreOffice has good support for such non-free formats, but not
|
||||
full support).
|
||||
|
||||
Fifth, if a program cannot be studied, you cannot be certain of its
|
||||
intentions. Since you do not know what the program does (in details), you do
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,49 +1,10 @@
|
|||
#+title: Hacking
|
||||
#+summary: A simple description of what hacking is really about
|
||||
#&summary
|
||||
Hackety hack.
|
||||
#&
|
||||
#+startup: showall
|
||||
#+license: wtfpl
|
||||
|
||||
* Hacking
|
||||
|
||||
He's a *hacker*! Oh no, the pirate's going to *hack* our computer! And our mobile
|
||||
phones! And our TV! Run for your lives! He'll use our credit cards to *hack*
|
||||
even more! He might even *hack* our fridge!
|
||||
|
||||
That's not a hacker. That's an evil person. Hackers are not evil. Hackers are
|
||||
curious people. The evil person described above can be called a /cracker/
|
||||
instead. Such a person can be said to /crack/ computers and mobile phones, not
|
||||
hack them. Hacking is very different.
|
||||
|
||||
*Hacking* is the act of creating new ways to use objects with well-defined
|
||||
uses. It's about experimenting, being clever, and playing. Hacking does not
|
||||
have to result in something useful, though it sometimes does in the long
|
||||
run. It's about the present.
|
||||
|
||||
When you've hacked something, you've created a *hack*. It can happen
|
||||
spontaneously, or it can happen because you want it to happen.
|
||||
|
||||
Once, I was eating a pizza in a restaurant with a group of friends when one of
|
||||
my friends couldn't eat anymore of his hummus. I had one slice of pizza back,
|
||||
and he had a little hummus back. I realized then that I could /combine/ the
|
||||
pizza and the hummus, and tada: I ate a hummus pizza slice (which was good, by
|
||||
the way); i created a hack.
|
||||
|
||||
Much more clever hacks have been created, but the hummus pizza example should
|
||||
serve as a simple example of what a real-life hack /could/ be --- a hack can be
|
||||
so many things.
|
||||
|
||||
Hacking is often associated with software development, because that's often
|
||||
about finding clever solutions and being open for new ways to do things.
|
||||
|
||||
** "Just stop it already. You've lost."
|
||||
|
||||
One could argue that the hacking community should just accept that the media
|
||||
and the non-hacker part of the public have long ago changed the meaning of
|
||||
hacker to "person who breaks digital security", and that hackers should just
|
||||
find another word to describe themselves. But if we did that, all the history
|
||||
associated with hacking would fade as new generations came along.
|
||||
|
||||
** External links
|
||||
|
||||
+ [[http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/H/hacker.html][The Jargon File: hacker]]
|
||||
+ [[http://stallman.org/articles/on-hacking.html][stallman.org: On Hacking]]
|
||||
|
||||
I use the term "hacking" to mean "playing with".
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -5,8 +5,6 @@ What's up with all that stuff?
|
|||
#+startup: showall
|
||||
#+license: wtfpl
|
||||
|
||||
Previous opinion: <@eval macros.titlelink('/writings/non-copylefted')@>.
|
||||
|
||||
* Licensing on metanohi
|
||||
|
||||
I usually just use the Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License, Version 2
|
||||
|
|
@ -45,7 +43,21 @@ I guess that some people consider e.g. CC BY-SA a recognizable symbol and that
|
|||
its law stuff is secondary. I can follow that thought, but I just got tired of
|
||||
it.
|
||||
|
||||
Some might not want to integrate WTFPL code into their project, but fuck them.
|
||||
Some might not want to integrate WTFPL code into their project, but fuck them
|
||||
(okay, in practice I'll probably just relicense to BSD2 or BSD3 if necessary).
|
||||
|
||||
All that being said, I will work in any free software and free culture project
|
||||
no matter what license they use. WTFPL is just for my junk.
|
||||
no matter what license they use. WTFPL is just for my own junk.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
* Copyright in general
|
||||
|
||||
I'm not a fan of copyright as it is right now, but I don't know if it should be
|
||||
removed alltogether (if that was even possible...). I think it would be nice if
|
||||
copyright was only for commercial use.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
* Previously
|
||||
|
||||
I used to have a lot of text about this, but I've come to just not care. It's
|
||||
all on git if you want to read it.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,93 +0,0 @@
|
|||
#+title: My works, non-copylefted
|
||||
#&summary
|
||||
Why I don't use copyleft for my own works.
|
||||
#&
|
||||
#+startup: showall
|
||||
#+license: wtfpl
|
||||
|
||||
#&+classes=warning
|
||||
This old opinion is somewhat verbose and, well, old. See <@eval
|
||||
macros.titlelink('/writings/licensing')@> for my current opinion. Why do I
|
||||
keep changing opinions? Ugh...
|
||||
#&
|
||||
|
||||
* My works, non-copylefted
|
||||
|
||||
A few months ago, I went from using the GPL for most of my software to BSD3;
|
||||
read about it [[/writings/software-licenses][here]]. I chose to continue to use Creative Commons
|
||||
Attribution-ShareAlike for most of my non-software works.
|
||||
|
||||
Now, I have chosen to stop copylefting my original works entirely.
|
||||
|
||||
I do this not because of a change in my general view of copyleft, but because I
|
||||
don't see myself ever using the legal benefits of copyleft; I can still
|
||||
understand why someone would choose to use copyleft to challenge copyright,
|
||||
fighting fire with fire, but it's just not something I would do.
|
||||
|
||||
The power of copyright lies in whether people accept the terms that an author
|
||||
puts forth, and that, if the copyright is abused, the author uses the law to
|
||||
punish the abusers. The same is essentially true for copyleft. So, if I
|
||||
release a work under e.g. Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, and someone
|
||||
derives a new work from that and does not copyleft that, I have the power to
|
||||
make them change that decision; I could contact them and try to convince them to
|
||||
be nice and free their work; I could contact them and say they *must* free the
|
||||
work because of the law; and I could even /sue/ them for not freeing their work!
|
||||
|
||||
Until now I have, without really realizing it, used copyleft licenses only for
|
||||
the signal they send: If you create something new from something I have made
|
||||
free, please make your work free as well. I never thought about what would
|
||||
happen and what I would do if someone broke the law and didn't follow my
|
||||
copyleft. I probably should have thought about that at the beginning, but hey,
|
||||
I just wanted to make my works freely available and modifiable and hope that
|
||||
others would do the same!
|
||||
|
||||
While I don't think it is wrong to use even lawsuits for upholding copyleft,
|
||||
it's not something I would /ever/ do. If someone takes a copylefted work and
|
||||
abuses it, the community does not lose works; it simply does not gain them.
|
||||
Arguing against this argument would be the same as asserting that Hollywood
|
||||
loses money when people do not pay for digital, made-at-no-cost copies of their
|
||||
films -- a view I certainly don't agree with.
|
||||
|
||||
Of course, I might never have to enter a lawsuit to uphold copyleft. Maybe just
|
||||
asking the abuser would be enough in all cases. But since this very page is
|
||||
public, the abuser would realize that I don't intend to sue in any case, so they
|
||||
might just ignore my request. And I don't intend to manipulate people into
|
||||
making them think I would sue them.
|
||||
|
||||
It's not my impression that there has been a lot of court cases involving
|
||||
copyleft; most of the license violations seem to be handled without the need for
|
||||
lawsuits, though I guess both lawyers and the threat of lawsuits are still quite
|
||||
used. The FSF's [[https://www.fsf.org/licensing/compliance][Compliance Lab]] gives a good impression of the potential
|
||||
difficulty of fixing license violations. I don't mind this compliance fixing,
|
||||
but in principle I am a bit against spending time making evil people relicense
|
||||
works when time could be spent making good people create new, free works. In
|
||||
the long run, this will surely result in more good, free works, though forcing
|
||||
someone evil to relicence might be practical in the short run.
|
||||
|
||||
In essence: Copyright is so hopelessly broken, and personally I'm not going to
|
||||
fight copyright with itself. This is because I'm not going to depend its and
|
||||
copyleft's legal benefits, and that is because I would only depend on something
|
||||
broken if I found it /very/ necessary and not just useful in the short run. I
|
||||
just want to share my works freely, and if someone who uses my works don't want
|
||||
to do that, I'll simply ignore them. My walking away from copyleft makes my
|
||||
works usable by more people.
|
||||
|
||||
#&img;url=/img/licenses/wtfpl.png,float=right
|
||||
|
||||
So, from now on I'll use the [[http://www.wtfpl.net/][Do What The Fuck You Want To Public License (WTFPL)]]
|
||||
for all my original works, software and culture alike. I don't think that the
|
||||
"fuck" in the license is a problem. I also thought about using Creative Commons
|
||||
Zero, but even though [[http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CC0_FAQ][it can be used for software]], [[http://opensource.org/licenses/index.html][OSI has not approved it]]
|
||||
because of [[http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/2012-February/thread.html][a patent clause]] ([[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#CC0][FSF has approved it]], and it's also DFSG-free), so it
|
||||
might be unpractical. WTFPL has been approved by the FSF. [[http://opensource.org/minutes20090304][OSI rejected it]], but
|
||||
that's because they didn't consider it a license and not because they disagreed
|
||||
with any of the (1) clauses in the WTFPL, so I don't think using the WTFPL will
|
||||
pose any practical problems. I'll still contribute to copyleft works, though I
|
||||
might mention this URL.
|
||||
|
||||
I was a bit inspired by [[http://blog.ninapaley.com/2013/01/18/ahimsa-sita-sings-the-blues-now-cc-0-public-domain/][Nina Paley's change to CC 0 from CC BY-SA]]. I think her
|
||||
story is scary.
|
||||
|
||||
My first copylefted program to be un-copylefted is the generator for this
|
||||
website which used to be under the AGPL. I'll relicense the rest of my works on
|
||||
a need-to-basis (there are so many, and I have other stuff to do).
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue