Exactly! He’s just trying to stall until the Dems loose congress. Oops, did I say that out loud?
14 Likes
6 Likes
I mean…
4 Likes
Wow, yet another level of respect for him!
4 Likes
I was sort of pointing out that as context… Laibach gave that speech right before the Yugoslav wars started, as a way to connect Milosevic to ethnic fascism… I suspect the hacker is trying to do the same by comparing Trump to Erdogan… The message is less to Trump than to his followers, trying to warn them about how this goes.
5 Likes
This would probably work better if they didn’t think that was a feature.
4 Likes
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.
14 Likes
9 Likes
It’ll be fully populated by Russian troool farms, nazis and grifters in 3, 2, 1…
11 Likes
Is it even recoloured?
5 Likes
8 Likes
8 Likes
Donald Trump’s new ‘social media platform’ isn’t a Twitter rival. It’s an investment scam
15 Likes
“Orlando Patrick Francis” yeah that’s legit ownership.
6 Likes
Coding Org Seeks ‘Legal Counsel’ After Trump Social Media Venture Appears To Violate Terms
A software project dedicated to community ownership and public accessibility slams into Donald Trump’s “Truth Social” media efforts.
The founder of the software codebase program apparently lifted by Donald Trump’s new “Truth Social” media venture is seeking “legal counsel” 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.
13 Likes
Of course it is. “It’s free stuff, so we’ll take it and put my name on it.”
Anyone trying to explain how open source works to Trump and friends will just be making Charlie Brown adult sounds to them.
20 Likes
As far as I know, anytime this has happened with open source software, the courts have sided with the open source company.
6 Likes
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 doesn’t apply to people who just steal code thinking that “Free as in Freedom” means that the rich are allowed to steal from the poor.
It is possible that there is an issue with the aGPL since it doesn’t really involve a case of copying and then distributing code in the way that the traditional GPL did. Trump et al. didn’t 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 isn’t 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.
Don’t worry, these guys are fine. Trust me. 
6 Likes
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 it’s not the same thing as JavaScript.) APIs aren’t code. They’re entry points into code, which have been standardized and published so that developers can write software that links against them. Java’s 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 didn’t 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 “pretending” 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 one’s own implementation is an important and now legally-protected right. But that’s 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.
4 Likes
