From 2015 to 2022, I spent hundreds of hours on Duolingo, translating articles, answering language questions on the forums, and helping to improve the smaller courses by reporting mistakes.
There are thousands of volunteers who donated their labour to Duo: the course creators who wrote their courses, the volunteers who created grammar guides (some smaller languages had an entire second course in the forums), the wiki contributors, the native speakers who answered questions in the sentence discussions.
All of their work made Duolingo the powerhouse it is today. Duo was built by a community who believed in its original mission: language learning should be free and accessible.
Bit by bit all of our work was hidden from us as Duolingo became a publicly-traded company. And now that work is being fed into their AI as training data.
Well, I've learned the true lesson of Duolingo: never give a corporation your labour for free. Don't ever trust them, no matter what they say. Eventually greed will consume any good intentions.
I would suggest that what you really learned was to ALWAYS "License" your contributions to any crowd-sourced project under CC-BY-SA, the #FSF#GPL or #AGPL, or some other #Creative_Commons or strong #Copyleft license.
Again: "License" your contributions - do not "ASSIGN" your copyright to any project. It's a common technique used by tricksters to steal your intellectual property for their own diabolical, ulterior motives like you just described
Ik heb nog eens goed nagedacht over wat @SIDN nu eigenlijk van plan is en mijn bezwaar komt hier op neer:
Open Systemen, Open Standaarden horen voor #SIDN en ook voor het registratiesysteem van SIDN heilig te zijn!
Ik vind dat we er met z'n allen voor moeten pleiten dat het registratiesysteem van een registry (een essentiële organisatie voor de toegang tot het internet) gebouwd zou moeten worden in uitsluitend #OpenSource Software, uitsluitend op basis van volledig open #standaarden gedraaid op volledig open #systemen
We betalen daar immers met z'n allen voor, als gebruikers van de .nl domeinnaam en als belastingbetalers.
En wat mij betreft is er geen enkele goede reden om daar ook maar 1 cent van uit te geven aan een mensenrechten schendend, in de USA gebaseerd, big tech bedrijf. Het is goedkoper is wel de allerslechtste reden om dat te doen.
@koosswart ik weet niet of nationaliseren de oplossing is, ik twijfel zelfs of dat wel een goed idee is.
Maar als er geld gegeven wordt aan een stichting (of BV) die in het algemeen belang (want dat zijn domeinnamen) iets gaat doen dan zou er wat mij betreft de eis aan verbonden moeten worden:
Die nummer 3 heeft denk ik nog een paar regels toelichting nodig: Als je een software dienst voor iemand anders draait is dat natuurlijk prima (dat is precies wat #ProcoliX doet), maar als daar een systeem in het algemeen belang op gedraaid wordt is het een heel goed idee om de complete configuratie, welke software gebruikt wordt en hoe het ingericht is helemaal open moeten zijn. Alleen op die manier heb je echt iets aan het #opensource zijn van de gemaakte software.
And yet we have the iPad (2001 space oddity), Mobile phone (star trek communicator), video calls (Metropolis, 2001 , blade runner etc), Ear buds (Fahrenheit 451), robotic prosthesis (terminator)
Helpful robots, language translators , smart watches etc etc
Vast swaths of our current world are ideas we've had that takes a lot of effort to bring into reality. Why do you think these people become billionaires.
They might start off making something cool but during that process if their isn't a strong "Ulysses Pact" built into the org (e.g. a #GPL license) and a lot of money is required, then investors inevitably take control and it becomes all about making "the line go up" for them, while providing just enough residual value and pushing regulations favoring investors not users.
Given that a lot of scifi is quite dystopian, they get that part right.
Large corporations like the hate on the #GPL even though it has brought them big benefits. #Linux would be nowhere near what it is without the GPL. I always saw #Google's #Fuchsia kernel as their effort to get out of the GPL, since it would replace the Linux kernel. There was even media hype to that effect. Now I'm happy to see that Google is no longer supporting #Chrome on Fuchsia. I see this as a win for #FreeSoftware
So #Google clearly does not want GPLv2 there either. Plus a big part of #BigTech's development model is building proprietary software that is mostly community-maintained free software. That's harder to do with any #GPL license.
Rozważam zmianę licencji moich projektów na #GPL, począwszy od przyszłych wersji. Albo przynajmniej tych projektów, w których jest więcej linii kodu niż byłoby linii informacji o licencji. Dlaczego? Być może dorosłem już, by zrozumieć jak złe są korporacje. Choć istotniejszym pytaniem jest: dlaczego przedtem używałem permisywnych licencji?
Być można to po prostu moja łatwowierność, przekonanie w "permisywną" definicję wolności. Chciałem, by moje programy pomagały ludziom. Nie liczyło się dla mnie, czy ktoś inny mógłby na nich zarabiać, albo użyć ich jako części własnościowego oprogramowania, a przynajmniej tak długo, jak mój oryginalny program pozostałby wolny.
Być może chodziło o prostotę — krótką licencję, którą byłem w stanie zrozumieć.
Być może była to kwestia braku wiary w GPL i jego egzekucję. Przypadki takie jak nVidia obchodząca licencję jądra Linuksa, grsecurity stające się własnościowym produktem, Oracle budujący wymuszenia w oparciu o AGPL, czy kolejne rządy państw łamiące licencję OpenSC. Wszak — nawet jeśli jakaś korporacja złamie moje prawo autorskie, co będę w stanie zdziałać?
Jednakże myślę, że czas to zmienić. Widząc, że coraz więcej #OpenSource się sypie, warto głośno powiedzieć: "wierzę w #WolneOprogramowanie, i do diabła z korporacyjnym wyzyskiem!"
@hlukasz@mgorny
To podsumuję jak rozumiem co napisałeś: #Korporacje są dobre dla #opensource pod warunkiem, że mogą dobrze sprzedać coś co dostały od innych za darmo.
A kodu opartego na #GPL nie można dobrze sprzedać bo nie można legalnie zabronić żeby ktoś (kto nawet za niego zapłacił) nie puścił go dalej za darmo.
"Najlepsze" jest zdanie "jak dodajemy coś co może się komuś przydać i nie jest specyficzne dla naszego produktu to wrzucamy takich patch do upstream" bo jest dość odważnym przyznaniem że bierzecie z opensource ile się da (na ile licencja pozwala) a oddajecie tylko tyle ile sami uznacie - czyli nawet zero.
@Rush Wait, I thought it's always been licensed under the #GPL since the 90s? I mean there's a reason #Doom has been available in #Debian for a long time... (Though only the engine, not the assets which are proprietary) :sagume_think:
While we are pleased when people use GNU licenses to distribute and license software, we condemn the use of unauthorized, confusing derivatives of the licenses. In this article, we explain how users are protected against restrictive terms introduced by people using GNU licenses' terms in drafting their own, new licenses: https://u.fsf.org/41g#GPL#AGPL#Copyleft#GNU
Does the #GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to [...]" Read the full answer at https://u.fsf.org/3kt#GNUGPLFAQ
Does the #GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to [...]" Read the full answer at https://u.fsf.org/3kt#GNUGPLFAQ
Does the #GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to [...]" Read the full answer at https://u.fsf.org/3kt#GNUGPLFAQ
Does the #GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to [...]" Read the full answer at https://u.fsf.org/3kt#GNUGPLFAQ
Does the #GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to [...]" Read the full answer at https://u.fsf.org/3kt#GNUGPLFAQ
In 1989, we published the GNU #GPL. It is at the core of software freedom and it protects users' rights to run, copy, modify, and share. Read more about free software licensing https://www.fsf.org/licensing
If you're writing open-source software, please do yourself and other software developers a favor and familiarize yourself with how software licensing works. As an Ubuntu Developer, much of my work involves auditing the source code licensing of various applications. Most of these applications have miserably complicated licensing situations, sometimes with licensing violations involved. I also occasionally run into licensing or copyright terms that an author probably didn't intend to specify, but that they did specify unambiguously nonetheless.
For instance, did you know that if you state that a file is "under the GPL license" without specifying what version, that means that the user of your file can use it under any version of the GPL they want to? Look at GPLv1 Section 7, GPLv2 Section 9, and GPLv3 Section 14 if you don't believe me. I found a file written in 2017 with these licensing terms. Did the author mean to do this? Probably not, they probably wanted to use GPLv3 (or maybe GPLv2). But since they didn't specify a version, I'm within my legal right to use this code under GPLv1's terms if I care to. I'm not going to do that since I have no interest in using this file for anything, but it goes to show you how a slip-up in your licensing specification can cause people to have rights or be free of restrictions you didn't want to give them or let them be free from.
Another (very very common) slip-up is for most of the source code in a repository to have license headers specifying GPLv2 or later, but with no repository-wide license specified in an AUTHORS or README file, and with a GPLv2 license in a LICENSE or COPYING file. What you probably think this does is license your program under GPLv2 or later, but what it actually does is give you a messy mixed-licensing situation with some files licensed GPLv2 only and some files licensed GPLv2 or later. Why? Because the default repository-wide license is GPLv2 as set by the LICENSE or COPYING file, and all of the headers that specify GPLv2 or later are overriding that default license.
You may think, "Why can't someone just infer that because most of the files are GPLv2 or later, that all of them are?" Great question! There's two answers. One, if you unambiguously specify something you didn't mean to specify, whatever you specified is what's legally binding. There's not room for "well that's what I said, but what I meant was..." in licensing. Secondly, many projects actually use multiple licenses in one project (for instance you'll have GPL, BSD-2-Clause, BSD-3-Clause, and MIT licenses all in one application). So how does one know if you just "accidentally" specified the wrong license, or if you meant to make a mixed-license application? They can't determine your intent with 100% certainty, so they have to obey what you said, not what you meant to say.
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. This is just advice on how to help keep software developers from having headaches and problems reusing code.
Even when development started in summer '79 it took twice as long as Apple expected, not only because they had to get rid of Jobs first. So LISA wasn't launched earlier than 1983 with 1Mb RAM for almost U$D 10K. The project was a $50 million investment for Apple Inc., and kept losses low since it sold almost 5K units annually. After 27 months it was in-house competition that buried the Lisa computers, litterally. In the end it was a zero sum game for Apple, but a huge step for modern graphic user-interfaces and more personal computers.
In 1989, we published the GNU #GPL. It is at the core of software freedom and it protects users' rights to run, copy, modify, and share. Read more about free software licensing https://www.fsf.org/licensing
A #FPGA chip that works with any amount of defects.
Have you ever felt like the performance of your programs was limited by your computer despite how much you have spent on it? I want to sell you extremely large Field Programmable Gate Array chips so that your programs can run as fast as possible.
Outcome of the panel on #RedHat and #CentOS . Most people seem to agree that Red Hat is not violating the GPL, but maybe they use it in a way that the GPL inventor did not foresee. Fix it could either mean to work around Red Hat Enterprise Linux (like AlmaLinux) or change the GPL (which certainly would be a huge challenge and was done before with GPLv3). #fosdem2024#gpl
Does the #GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to [...]" Read the full answer at https://u.fsf.org/3kt#GNUGPLFAQ
The Anti-Capitalist Software License (#ACSL) can be adapted but as it stands does not require disclosure of derived code, instead limits use to individuals and organisations which do not exploit labour, but are either non-profit / educational, or employee owned.
Diese Initiative von #BrucePerens, Mitbegründer der Open-Source-Bewegung, hat durchaus explosives Potential.
Haben die üblichen #FOSS-Lizenzen ausgedient? Wurde FOSS von Konzernen anders verwendet als von der FOSS-Idee her ursprünglich gedacht? Wie würde eine korrigierte Lizenz aussehen? 🤔