(2023-05-12) cp != mv, or the 9001th post about copyright and copyleft
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't want to write about this. I really didn't. But it looks like I have
no other choice.

As long as I am dependent on third-party hosting, I can't, for instance, just
copy the binaries of the Timendus' CHIP-8 test suite 4.0 into my repo 
without having to rehost their Octo source code. Because GPLv3. And Drew can 
remove my repo because of this, since practical sense doesn't matter to him. 
And the fact that Octo is an assembler-as-a-service (that can go down 
anytime, so any source codes written in it will become unbuildable unless 
someone makes a full backup of that webpage) doesn't matter either. The 
question is: does this sound like freedom to you?

To me, it sounds even sillier than the copytards' statements that EULA offers
any protection. Let me tell what I think of them, by the way. First, being 
able to reverse-engineer the details that really matter had never been 
stopped by any EULA. Second, copying information doesn't remove it from its 
original place. Third, if you need a large "DO NOT COPY OR WE'LL PUNISH YOU" 
sign to just be able to sell a single result of your work again and again, 
then your work is worthless in the first place and deserves to be pirated. 
Because, besides donations, really good product owners receive most of their 
money for professional support and regular updates that offer new useful 
features, i.e. for real work, not for selling thin air in the form of 
licensing keys and the right to copy once and launch on a single machine. 
The subscription model is an even worse form of the same slavery. Better to 
avoid such software altogether.

GPL neckbeards are on the other extreme end of the same scale. The
anti-freedom they introduce doesn't mostly touch end users though, but it 
touches creators and modders. Again, if a GPL-based algorithm is used in 
some proprietary software, no one can prove its presence there because no 
one has the source code. And if a GPL-based algorithm, in a (slightly) 
rewritten form, is used in some public domain software where no one can 
claim the authorship (by definition of the public domain), what can they do 
with this? But the more important question is, why would they even attempt 
to do anything with this? Isn't it better for users AND creators to have 
more freedom? If no, which agenda are they pursuing? Why are they forcing 
everyone to increase entropy and waste precious energy resources on 
rehosting gigabytes of the same source code every time they want to make a 
small modification in their derivative works? Does this really help to make 
the world a better place or just serves to scratch some leftist ego in the 
shape "we suffered to host this, so must everyone else"?

You know, there is a reason I put all my personal projects (the ones that I
can publish) into public domain, and also started learning programming 
languages that have non-GPL primary/reference implementations (preferably 
public domain or its equivalent too). Because I'm allergic to any freedom 
restrictions, whatever side they come from.

And yes, remember, cp != mv. Sell your real work, not air or egos.

--- Luxferre ---