I meanā¦
Wow, yet another level of respect for him!
I was sort of pointing out that as contextā¦ Laibach gave that speech right before the Yugoslav wars started, as a way to connect Milosevic to ethnic fascismā¦ I suspect the hacker is trying to do the same by comparing Trump to Erdoganā¦ The message is less to Trump than to his followers, trying to warn them about how this goes.
This would probably work better if they didnāt think that was a feature.
My long-time rule of thumb is never trust any person or organization that uses truth in their name. Double that if they use Latin.
The hacking will be glorious.
Itāll be fully populated by Russian troool farms, nazis and grifters in 3, 2, 1ā¦
Is it even recoloured?
Donald Trumpās new āsocial media platformā isnāt a Twitter rival. Itās an investment scam
āOrlando Patrick Francisā yeah thatās legit ownership.
Coding Org Seeks āLegal Counselā After Trump Social Media Venture Appears To Violate Terms
A software project dedicated to community ownership and public accessibility slams into Donald Trumpās āTruth Socialā media efforts.
The founder of the software codebase program apparently lifted by Donald Trumpās new āTruth Socialā media venture is seeking ālegal counselā to make certain the operation complies with licensing requirements to keep the program free and accessible to the public.
The Trump site already appears to be violating licensing requirements.
Of course it is. āItās free stuff, so weāll take it and put my name on it.ā
Anyone trying to explain how open source works to Trump and friends will just be making Charlie Brown adult sounds to them.
As far as I know, anytime this has happened with open source software, the courts have sided with the open source company.
I think you can make an argument that Google beat Oracle on Java for a similarish kind of situation but it is murky. Oracle owned the open source Java source code and had restrictions on what you could do to make your own implementation but Google violated those restrictions for their chrome implementation of Java. Google won the Supreme Court case arguing that they are allowed to copy APIs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_LLC_v._Oracle_America,_Inc.
Obviously, this doesnāt apply to people who just steal code thinking that āFree as in Freedomā means that the rich are allowed to steal from the poor.
It is possible that there is an issue with the aGPL since it doesnāt really involve a case of copying and then distributing code in the way that the traditional GPL did. Trump et al. didnāt copy the code and then sell it to other people claiming it as their own code. They copied the code and then used the code on their own servers. There isnāt much case law about this situation yet. I have the feeling that a lot of tech companies have just kind of been avoiding the issue.
Donāt worry, these guys are fine. Trust me. 
Google replicated the Java API for Android application development, not Chrome. (Java has been officially deprecated in every major browser for years now, actually, and itās not the same thing as JavaScript.) APIs arenāt code. Theyāre entry points into code, which have been standardized and published so that developers can write software that links against them. Javaās API is the framework upon which Java is built, but as long as Google cleanroomed their own code that was written to implement that API, they didnāt steal anything from Oracle, they simply built a compatible version of their own. If Oracle had won their case, important open source projects like WINE would be illegal because it replicates the Win32 API on Linux by āpretendingā to be Windows, intercepting calls from an application and processing them in a Linux-compatible manner. An API is basically a gigantic interface, and building oneās own implementation is an important and now legally-protected right. But thatās not what Trump and company did. They just outright stole the code for Mastodon by using it without attribution and not publishing their changes.
This is something that the AGPL license explicitly prohibits without providing attribution, publishing the changes you make, and making your code available for others to use under the same license. I know, I had to switch mobile browser sniffing packages at a former job because the one I was using switched from the MIT license to the AGPL in an update I would have needed to use in order to address a bug I was running into in the last MIT-licensed version.
Yes, that is the point. It isnāt clear that the aGPL is enforceable given that software copyright has traditionally involved the right to actually distribute a product and the aGPL doesnāt. The aGPL licence is more like the John Deere EULA than the GPL for instance. Iām not saying it isnāt valid, but the legality hasnāt actually been tested in the US yet. I guess there was a case in Italy?
I agree that the right decision was come to in the Oracle v. Google case but it is a counterexample to the idea that Open Source rights holders always win based on how they write their copyright license and it isnāt impossible that aGPL users could find that their rights are not deemed to be as binding as the license itself spells it out.
It could be other than a cut and dry legal case is all Iām saying. Stealing is stealing unless you are rich.
