Should thou not copiest this book most faithfully, taking care afterwards to dispatch it to three of thy brothers, thy brains shall be cudgelled forth and fed to the crows.
Clever and relevant. We look back on these sorts of things with a certain conceitedness, yet we still have the modern day equivalent with chain letters and social media posts.
Hah, I was not thinking of chain letters and social media posts. My mind was going in this direction:
> You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions:
>You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and*
>You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and
>You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works;
One of the headline quotes in this article may be a forgery:
“For him that stealeth, or borroweth and returneth not, this book from its owner, let it change into a serpent in his hand & rend him. Let him be struck with palsy & all his members blasted. Let him languish in pain crying aloud for mercy, & let there be no surcease to his agony till he sing in dissolution. Let bookworms gnaw his entrails in token of the Worm that dieth not, & when at last he goeth to his final punishment, let the flames of Hell consume him for ever.”
I don't know anything about this topic, I just saw this after looking it up real quick:
"The book curse from the San Pedro monastery is no such thing. It is an amusing hoax dating from 1909. Edmund Pearson, joker, librarian and true-crime writer, claimed it was part of a rediscovered Old Librarian's Almanack originally published in 1773. The Old Librarian dated the translation to 1712, "English'd by Sir Matthew Mahan" in a guide to his Spanish travels."
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/marx-pandora-a...
We still use these today. We call them copyright notices. "If thou copies or distributes this work without thy lord permission... bad things." Then as now, the most ominous warnings are reserved for situations with the least likelihood of being caught.
I write GPL software for a living, I mean it in the best possible way.
What's your problem with the AGPL? I'm pretty neutral on it myself, I havn't used it for my own projects but it seems like an ok license to have around for people who don't want their code used in locked up SaaS.
I interpret a lot of AGPL projects I see as "we're willing to negotiate a secondary license to your private business". If you're the best in class (or just the only available public option) it can make sense as a way to try and make money. If there's a more liberally licensed substitution, however, it's probably best read as a "don't use me for your business" flag...
Right, but, from a business perspective, the same argument goes for GPL vs permissive licenses; why use GPL if there's an Apache or BSD alternative.
I'm ok with dual licensing, what annoys me is businesses that makes nominally free software but puts half the core functionality in proprietary extensions. It feels like they're saying, we want the community to contribute to our core, but we're going to sell the profitable parts.
Even worse is a company like Odoo (not to name anyone...), who switched from all AGPL + selling support model to a free core + proprietary modules model. They relicensed their codebase, claiming they own copyright for all of it since they rewrote all community-contributed parts, but that's really questionable. You can't erase 10 years of community contributions.
I don't really have a problem with this sort of practice, and I think it is reflective of the model I feel most companies should use: keep the core-to-your-business software for your company proprietary and open-source all non-core-to-your-business software. It is the only model that will help keep open-source alive and well funded.
It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a company to open source everything it creates; there are legitimate competitive advantages to keeping that software to yourself. It is much easier to convince companies to share their non-core software, and companies will actually gain from doing this.
The reason I dislike AGPL is the confusion around it (I think I have seen it interpreted as both 1. Same as GPL only for web apps and 2. You must buy an exception or everything that ever communicates with it is also AGPL.)
AGPL seems like a completely logical extension of the GPL. Being in favour of one and not the other seems hypocritical to me.
edit: I just looked it up on the GNU site.
> However, some companies that develop and rely upon free software consider this requirement to be too burdensome. They want to avoid code with this requirement, and expressed concern about the administrative costs of checking code for this additional requirement
You already have to check the license of any code you use, not sure how this is an extra burden. You just have to decide once upfront if the particular project will be AGPL.
At work some clients don't want the extra burden of the network distribution clause, when that's the case we don't use AGPL code; but that's precisely the point - the authors don't want them to be able to use the code on their server without sharing.
I can understand this one: May the sword of anathema slay, If anyone steals this book away.
And this one: If anyone take away this book, let him die the death; let him be fried in a pan; let the falling sickness and fever size him; let him be broken on the wheel, and hanged. Amen.
But I'm puzzled by this one: Get our latest, delivered straight to your inbox by subscribing to our newsletter.
One newsletter he did slay
but two rose up from where the first one lay
two, then four, then eight and more
A mere human cannot defeat this beast
"Unsubscribe" he set the auto-reply
but thousands, no millions, no billions, no trillions
of newsletters filled up his dying inbox
Perhaps the first one wasn't so bad?
If you are not the intended recipient
of this email, then:
(a) Please notify the sender of this email
immediately by return email or telephone
and immediately delete this message;
(b) You may not print, store, forward or
copy this message or any part thereof
or disclose or allow information in this
message to be disclosed to any other
person or third party.
The information in or attached to this email
message is confidential and may be subject to
legal privilege and client confidentiality.
We cannot be held liable for any harm or loss
resulting from malicious software code or viruses
in this message or attachments, including data
corruption resulting therefrom. None of our
employees or representatives are permitted to
send unsolicited messages ("spam") and our company
cannot be held liable therefore. If you regard this
message as spam, please inform us immediately by
sending an email to test@example.com
Unless otherwise agreed:
(a) We are only deemed to have received
an email once we have confirmed receipt
thereof to you;
(b) We are only deemed to have sent an
email once reflected as "sent" on our
email server.
If this message contains offensive, derogatory or
defamatory statements or materials, it means the
message has been sent outside the sender's scope of
employment with us and only the sender can be held
liable in his/her personal capacity. This disclaimer
applies to our original message, any attachments and
all subsequent messages or attachments we may send.
If you have any questions on the above disclaimer,
please call Lorem Ipsum at (555) 555-5555 or email
us via test@example.com
24 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 60.9 ms ] thread> You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions:
>You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and*
>You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and
>You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works;
“For him that stealeth, or borroweth and returneth not, this book from its owner, let it change into a serpent in his hand & rend him. Let him be struck with palsy & all his members blasted. Let him languish in pain crying aloud for mercy, & let there be no surcease to his agony till he sing in dissolution. Let bookworms gnaw his entrails in token of the Worm that dieth not, & when at last he goeth to his final punishment, let the flames of Hell consume him for ever.”
I don't know anything about this topic, I just saw this after looking it up real quick:
"The book curse from the San Pedro monastery is no such thing. It is an amusing hoax dating from 1909. Edmund Pearson, joker, librarian and true-crime writer, claimed it was part of a rediscovered Old Librarian's Almanack originally published in 1773. The Old Librarian dated the translation to 1712, "English'd by Sir Matthew Mahan" in a guide to his Spanish travels." https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/marx-pandora-a...
I really struggle with AGPL however.
What's your problem with the AGPL? I'm pretty neutral on it myself, I havn't used it for my own projects but it seems like an ok license to have around for people who don't want their code used in locked up SaaS.
I'm ok with dual licensing, what annoys me is businesses that makes nominally free software but puts half the core functionality in proprietary extensions. It feels like they're saying, we want the community to contribute to our core, but we're going to sell the profitable parts.
Even worse is a company like Odoo (not to name anyone...), who switched from all AGPL + selling support model to a free core + proprietary modules model. They relicensed their codebase, claiming they own copyright for all of it since they rewrote all community-contributed parts, but that's really questionable. You can't erase 10 years of community contributions.
It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect a company to open source everything it creates; there are legitimate competitive advantages to keeping that software to yourself. It is much easier to convince companies to share their non-core software, and companies will actually gain from doing this.
Kudos to you.
The reason I dislike AGPL is the confusion around it (I think I have seen it interpreted as both 1. Same as GPL only for web apps and 2. You must buy an exception or everything that ever communicates with it is also AGPL.)
edit: I just looked it up on the GNU site. > However, some companies that develop and rely upon free software consider this requirement to be too burdensome. They want to avoid code with this requirement, and expressed concern about the administrative costs of checking code for this additional requirement
So much for user freedom being #1.
At work some clients don't want the extra burden of the network distribution clause, when that's the case we don't use AGPL code; but that's precisely the point - the authors don't want them to be able to use the code on their server without sharing.
And this one: If anyone take away this book, let him die the death; let him be fried in a pan; let the falling sickness and fever size him; let him be broken on the wheel, and hanged. Amen.
But I'm puzzled by this one: Get our latest, delivered straight to your inbox by subscribing to our newsletter.
Also relevant as an early form of DRM: http://www.wimborneminster.org.uk/110/chained-library.html