... you DO realize Jesus literally "vandalized" a market, right?
like, Jesus actually did use property damage to make his point, when he trashed merchants property they had set up for sale in a temple.
soooo....maybe fuck off with this houlier-than-thou bullshit?
yes, correct, assuming a solo project!
thank you for the correction.
yes and no:
the copyright owner can do whatever they want, but they can't really revoke a GPL license. that's not really a thing.
and the part about
If you obtained your copy under the old license you can use it under the old license when you obtain a new copy you have a new license agreement.
seems to me like you are implying that "use under the old license" means "run the program on my own machine", but that's not true, since GPL explicitly allows redistribution and modification.
under a GPL license, you effectively give up control over your software voluntarily:
The GNU General Public Licenses are a series of widely used free software licenses, or copyleft licenses, that guarantee end users the freedom to run, study, share, or modify the software.
(highlighted the relevant portion for your convenience)
this makes revoking the license effectively impossible.
you could continue development under a different license, but that gets legally tricky very quickly.
for example: all the code previously under GPL, stays under GPL. so if someone where to modify those parts of the code and redistribute it as a patch, you couldn't legally do anything about that.
which seems to be what the OOP claims the change to a CC-BY-NC-ND forbids, apparently misunderstanding, that this new license only applies to code added to the repo since the license change, not the code from before the license change.
yes you can!
...for new versions. not for already released ones.
at least not with most common copyleft/open source licenses.
edit: assuming a solo project. see below.
sure, if you change absolutely everything about what i said and twisted it around into a completely different situation that has nothing to do with anything being discussed, you might have a point!
i never once said i want to be a part of it.
i never once said that their existence is a problem.
in fact i've said the opposite multiple times.
it's their insistence on being public and then getting annoyed when someone wanders in on accident, assuming entirely reasonably, that is a public space, since, you know, it IS public, that i take issue with.
i don't want to participate, and i respect their rules.
what i don't want is posts either complaining about others missing the rules and posting by mistake, and what i also don't want are posts like this one claiming that having communities which are clearly, by their own rules, private communities that are kept open to the public being somehow fine. which then necessitates idiotic spam like this very post.
you want a private corner for your group? fine, set it to private. that's exactly what that is for.
if you want to reach lots of people, keep it open. and expect people to interpret said "open" sign to actually mean open, because that is what you willfully set it to.
wanting it both ways is some serious bs...
okay, put it a different way:
if someone's car is blocking half the sidewalk, forcing every passerby to walk around...is that made any better when they hang a little sign on it saying "please mind the car"?
they're still in the way. they could go all the way up their driveway, there's plenty of room, they just choose to make their bad parking everyone else's problem.
that's what's going on here:
they could correctly configure their community like everyone else, but they choose to make it everyone else's problem when they show up in the all feed.
and the all feed is not owned by any one instance, which is why your analogy with the authorities doesn't work. (the park analogy isn't great anyway, the driveway/sidewalk one is better, i think)
their attitude of "just block it, if you don't like it" is the very definition of making their community everybody's else's problem.
and i think that's rude and inconsiderate.
and if you can't see how it's way worse to control how who can post is much worse than what gets posted:
it's the difference between banning pride merch from your store, and banning queer people from your store.
both might be bad, but one is clearly much, MUCH worse!
i mean, kind of? not really?
the park is all of lemmy. WomensStuff doesn't own all of lemmy, so that doesn't really fit with the metaphor.
more accurate would be, if a small group marched into the park, staked off a section right in the middle, put up a little sign they made themselves, and declared this to be a competition area. all without any coordination with park authorities, without any permits, and with no prior warning to the general community.
it's simply rude. that's really what it boils down to.
lemmy is public by default. that's the entire point. so declaring that this specific patch lemmy (or grass to keep with the metaphor) suddenly isn't public anymore, is at least rude.
it's just not how public spaces work.
i want to reiterate here, that, again, i totally understand why women want a space just for them.
it's that using the rules instead of any number of other enforcement mechanism is really, really not how things are done around here. that's why it is considered so rude by so many other users.
it breaks the unspoken rules of the platform.
edit: comment was made with different content in the parent comment.
no, that is very much different.
pie recipes on FuckCars get deleted because of their content, not because of who posted them.
rules are supposed to be for content.
this constitutes a misuse of the rule system.
the point I'm making is:
the software doesn't do what they want right now.
future development doesn't mean anything in this context, but by all means, open a feature request; I'm sure plenty of communities would welcome features like that!
the problem is the disregard for the design of the platform.
it doesn't do what they want now, and they need to conform to how the platform works now.
public means public. private means private.
those settings exist for a reason.
if visibility is such a concern, make two communities:
one that is public and allows anyone to participate, and one that is private, invite only.
that last one is obviously what they have tried to recreate here, and it's not how the platform generally works.
in a traditional forum, this isn't really an issue, since you'd just have a designated board, clearly separate from others. only lemmy is not a traditional forum. it doesn't have this separation.
anything that shows up on all is supposed to be fair game for everyone.
if you don't want that, don't make it show up in all.
i really don't care if it's a womens only, or mens only, or canadians only community. the public feed is not the place for that, and with the current state of the software (which is the only thing of relevance here) what this community wants is not possible.
so either:
annoying users is generally bad Netiquette. this bad Netiquette is the issue at hand.
not the desire for a designated womens space. i haven't seen anyone in the thread lamenting that.
this whole thing is kind of like setting up a bbq in the middle of a public park, and getting mad at people, when they point out that there is a designated bbq area that you are supposed to use.
it's not the people pointing out the existence of a designated bbq area that are wrong!
it's the people ignoring the signs that say "please use the designated area for your bbqs" that are wrong.
i agree with this, but would like to point out:
if the software can't do what you want it to do...you need to use a different software.
from what i can tell about the community, they really want to be a discord server, but on lemmy.....why not just use discord in the first place then?
faulting the general userbase for using the software exactly as intended and then getting mad about it seems...really toxic...and intentionally combative.
as usual where austrian (any DACH country, really) bureaucracy is concerned: it's not that simple...
we are technically neutral! ...but participate in (and host!) NATO training exercises, use NATO equipment, use NATO tactics...
so we are a de-facto member. without actually being a member. but still kind of a member. but not really...see where this is going?
austrian neutrality exists only on paper. always has. it's bullshit, a farce, and a national embarrassment.
for "this dude" to have any meaning to anyone, there needs to be a name attached at the very least.
that alone is personal information.
personal information is any information that can be used to uniquely identify a natural person.
this app was nothing but personal information being deliberately spread without the persons consent.
man am i glad this sort of bullshit isn't even up for discussion in the EU...what an absolute nightmare for privacy...