Follow

Dear lovers of transparency, we have great news for you.

Just now, two repositories have been published:

- codeberg.org/Codeberg-Infrastr (our slow-long-term effort to release configs to the public, WIP, and every typing hand welcome!)
- codeberg.org/Codeberg-Infrastr (some open data attempt, still looking for licence recommendations!)

@codeberg Creative Commons ShareAlike should allow it to stay in the commons. Ideally there’d be a license that states that anything that uses the data should be released into the commons.

@aral wouldn't a specialized data(base) license be better?

@codeberg needs more research

world.openfoodfacts.org/legal uses Open Database License and Database Contents License.

openstreetmap.org/copyright uses Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL)

wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Lic uses Creative Commons CC0 License

also check similar projects if you know more

@davidak @aral @codeberg Instead of falsely claiming to hold any copyright in the server stats, Codeberg should, in my opinion, upload a disclaimer that says something like this:

“Thanks to German copyright law, these server stats are not copyright-protected and therefore in the public domain. Use them as you like.”

cf. social.tchncs.de/@pixelcode/10

@pixelcode @davidak @codeberg As much as I’m all for keeping open things open, in this case, I think public domain would likely be the easiest. I mean, I don’t see how Big Evil Corp is going to do anything nasty or profitable with those stats :)

@MagicLike "Ethical licenses" do not work, because they are not enforceable and are incompatible with FOSS licenses. They violate rule 0 of the Free Software definition.

Who use them hurt Free Softwere.

Here is a german talk and podcast on the topic.

media.ccc.de/v/camp2015-7046-f
pietcast.com/folge-0019-anti-m

@codeberg @pixelcode

@davidak @MagicLike @codeberg Is there any rationale for your claim that ethical licences “are not enforceable” or is it just something you put out here?

Freedom 0 is about the user being allowed to run the program as he wishes (gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.htm). According to § 69c,d UrhG, merely executing a program does NOT constitute a copyright infringement at all. That means software licences don't even apply to running a program, which is why no licence could possibly violate Freedom 0.

@pixelcode that is the conclusion i have come to from the discussions. see the links for examples

do you have examples where any "ethical license" is enforced by court? there are for the GPL, so that is a viable license

but even if that would not be a problem, they are not compatible with FOSS licenses, so you make collaboration impossible legally and split communities

please use established licenses, like (A)GPL or MIT/Apache2 and make licensing not more complicated than it already is

@davidak Honestly, I'm really not a fan of video/audio formats. :/ Do you have a TL;DR maybe?

There doesn't have to be a court verdict to make a licence enforcable. It either is or it isn't. I really don't see any reason to assume they're generally invalid.

Let's say there's a clause that bans usage by anyone who infringes upon the user's privacy by violating the GDPR. What would be invalid about that? Auftragsverarbeitungsverträge also enforce GPDR compliance and are very common.

@davidak Also, for example, the For Good Eyes Only Licence is, from its own perspective, compatible with any other licence, because it doesn't include strong copyleft like GPL does.

And that's the thing: Even regular copyleft licences are only compatible with a few hand-selected licences – there's no universal “copyleft interoperability”.

Also, since copyleft licences rely on strong copyright, they actually strengthen traditional copyright law, which is a practice I'm very uncomfortable with.

@pixelcode tl;dr is what i said: not enforceable and incompatible.

the graphic says: "prohibits behaving in unethical ways"

what does that even mean? and do you think a court would agree with you when you blame someone of doing it with your program?

if a license does not work in our legal system, what even is the point?

it only causes confusion and legal uncertainty. makes a project less accessible

@davidak I understood your claims. But do you have any rationale for those *claims* (reason + example) or do you just say so and that's all?

If you're referring to the For Good Eyes Only Licence's summary, then please note that, just like the name suggests, it's only a summary, not the licence's actual content. You can find the full licence text at forgoodeyesonly.codeberg.page/

(Also, due to incompetence, I must've messed up the HTML link to the summary PDF... 🙄)

@pixelcode these are not my claims. it's just the conclusion i came to when researching the topic and discussions about it

i actually don't care about that specific license and have not read much about it, since i suppose it has the same fundamental issues as other "ethical licenses"

i just want to make people aware of the criticism, because they otherwise could think it's a good thing because it's "ethical", but that's not how licenses work

@pixelcode @davidak @MagicLike@mstdn.social @codeberg The bigger problem with "ethical licenses" (or anything that restricts usage context) is that it fundamentally kills the concept of a public commons; because everybody has slightly different definitions of 'ethical', you would see a proliferation of licenses that all disallow *subtly* different things, eventually leading to a patchwork of prohibitions.

Which essentially means that with every level in the dependency tree, you further approximate the point of "literally nobody can use the resulting software because everybody is disallowed from using it by *some* component of it".

This is obviously not sustainable. And that's not even going into how the license is entirely the wrong place to be enforcing ethical standards...

@joepie91 @davidak @codeberg You're complaining about strong, literal, non-interoperable copyleft in general, which makes it, for example, even impossible to mix GPLv2 and GPLv3. Your argumentation only works if every licence on the planet contains a copyleft clause, which is obviously not the case.

Also, most ethical licences are created around already existing, well-defined ethical standards like the UDHR, for example, which is undoubtedly universally accepted.

licenses, pol 

@pixelcode @davidak @codeberg The UDHR is not *remotely* universally accepted as an ethical standard, and the reason copyleft licenses don't pose *as much* of a problem is because they don't outright *prevent* use in certain contexts, they just introduce additional requirements.

I also have no idea why you think that "every license on the planet containing a copyleft clause" is somehow a requirement for anything I've said.

@joepie91 @davidak @codeberg Denying the universal acceptance of human rights is not a valid argument, because it's not true.

“All 193 member states of the United Nations have ratified at least one of the nine binding treaties influenced by the Declaration, with the vast majority ratifying four or more.”
un.org/en/sections/universal-d

@joepie91 @davidak @codeberg You claim that ethical licences generally can't be used together with other licences. To achieve that, either all ethical, all non-ethical or all licences altogether would have to include clauses that prevent the licensee from combining the licensed work with a different licence. That is what is generally called “copyleft”.

Since not all (ethical/other) licences include copyleft, your claim that ethical licences would be generally incompatible is not true either.

licenses, pol 

@pixelcode @davidak @codeberg That is not what "copyleft" means, and I was never talking about an *explicit* prohibition against other licenses to begin with.

And honestly, if you can't understand that most people's ideas of 'applied ethics' doesn't evaluate precisely to "whatever the UDHR says", then I don't know what to tell you.

@joepie91 @davidak @codeberg You might have heard of the GPL (GNU General Public Licence). It requires the licensee to choose the same licence terms for any redistribution. That makes it illegal to combine GPLv2-licensed works with GPLv3-licensed works. This is copyleft. See gnu.org/licenses/license-list. for reference.

Of course, you can keep claiming that the UDHR being ratified to some degree by almost all countries in the world would not make it universally accepted. But that doesn't make it true.

@pixelcode @davidak @codeberg Yeah, okay, it's clear by this point that you don't actually intend to have a genuine discussion, and are just looking for the nearest justification to dismiss my concern, repeatedly stripping CWs in the process. Bye.

@joepie91 @davidak @codeberg You're confusing “disagreeing with someone” with “not being interested in discussion”. If I wasn't open to discussion, I wouldn't have replied in the first place.

The goal of ethical licensing is not “matching every human's understanding of ethics”, but instead matching those ethics generally agreed upon. Software freedom isn't accepted by everyone either (otherwise proprietary apps wouldn't exist).

I don't see any reason to use content warnings for this topic.

@joepie91 @davidak @codeberg Also, I find it a great pity that your reaction to disagreement is blocking the other one. I'm sorry if I offended you in any way, it wasn't my intention.

@codeberg According to § 2 UrhG only “personal intellectual creations” are copyright-protected, meaning only humans' works could possibly qualify for intellectual property. That means the pure measured values of your server stats that have been created solely by a computer program are NOT copyright-protected.

By setting a licence, you falsely claim to own copyright when, in fact, there is none to begin with.

Please don't mislead your users – please don't choose a licence.

CC @aral

@pixelcode @codeberg What about database rights? If a license is not the correct contract here, what would be? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Databa

@aral @codeberg Interesting question! As copyright lawyer Plutte explains (ra-plutte.de/rechtlicher-schut), simple works (that don't constitute a personal intellectual creation) are only protected as databases according to § 87a UrhG if they require a “substantial investment” to be created.

According to the Munich Higher Regional Court, the investment is not substantial “if the necessary expenditure was insignificant or could be easily provided by anyone” (29 U 1048/18), openjur.de/u/2276086.html.

@aral @codeberg I'm quite certain that, in this sense, merely making the server put some statistical values into a .csv doesn't require any “substantial investment”. 🤷

@codeberg I'm still confused by the users and repos count: `2022-09-13 | 35928 | 40777`
Because that would mean that there are about 1.135 repos per user.
But looking at some better-known projects or personal-accounts, it seems as if the number should be between 2 and 10.

Which would mean that there are a lot of empty accounts?
Is this related to spam, or is that a normal average?

@comcloudway Both, actually. We have a lot of spam registrations, but we're also cleaning them up occasionally.

We also have many users who just register accounts to e.g. participate in other projects (both issues / comments and being granted access to the repos without the need for personal forks), using organizations (not keeping repos under their user accounts). And also only reserving the username for future use or trying Codeberg.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon for Tech Folks

This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!