Mastodon Puts Trump's Social Network On Notice For Improperly Using Its Code (theverge.com) 134
Mastodon has sent former President Donald Trump's company a formal notification that it's breaking the rules by using Mastodon's open-source code to build its social network, named Truth. The Verge reports: This news comes from a blog post by Mastodon's founder Eugen Rochko, but others have previously pointed out that the organization behind Truth, the Trump Media and Technology Group (or TMTG), was violating Mastodon's software license by not providing the source code for the site built on top of it. Trump's group has 30 days from when the letter was sent to comply with the license or stop using the software, or it could lose the right to do so.
While Truth hasn't officially launched yet, internet users discovered that a test version basically had the same interface as Mastodon, and that some of the code for the site was unchanged from the other social network's code. By itself, that's actually the intended use of open-source software -- but as the Software Freedom Conservancy pointed out last week, apps or websites based on software that uses the AGPLv3 license have to in turn provide their own source code. According to the foundation that wrote AGPL, it's meant to make the community's software better: if you improve on something that someone else made, they should be able to benefit from your work like you did theirs.
As Mastodon and Rochko reiterated on Friday, though, TMTG hasn't done that -- it even went as far as to call its software "proprietary," and seemingly tried to hide the fact that it was based on Mastodon. Now that the Truth has been revealed, however, TMTG will either have to rebuild it without using Mastodon's code -- a tall order, as bootstrapping a social network site isn't particularly easy -- or release its source code and change the terms of service.
While Truth hasn't officially launched yet, internet users discovered that a test version basically had the same interface as Mastodon, and that some of the code for the site was unchanged from the other social network's code. By itself, that's actually the intended use of open-source software -- but as the Software Freedom Conservancy pointed out last week, apps or websites based on software that uses the AGPLv3 license have to in turn provide their own source code. According to the foundation that wrote AGPL, it's meant to make the community's software better: if you improve on something that someone else made, they should be able to benefit from your work like you did theirs.
As Mastodon and Rochko reiterated on Friday, though, TMTG hasn't done that -- it even went as far as to call its software "proprietary," and seemingly tried to hide the fact that it was based on Mastodon. Now that the Truth has been revealed, however, TMTG will either have to rebuild it without using Mastodon's code -- a tall order, as bootstrapping a social network site isn't particularly easy -- or release its source code and change the terms of service.
If source unmodified ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:If source unmodified ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If they were hiding the fact they were using it, that implies they removed or changed references in the UI. Source code changed.
You are assuming their contractor informed them that they were saving time by using an open source library. Or that the spokesperson that replied even has a clue about such matters and conflated building a brand new site with brand new code, or confused "new code" with "different code" relative to the last social media attempt.
Re: (Score:2)
All of which is completely irrelevant. Ignorance of your licensing agreements is not a legal defense.
Re: (Score:2)
All of which is completely irrelevant. Ignorance of your licensing agreements is not a legal defense.
It is relevant to whether there is a conspiracy or simply incompetence.
Re: (Score:2)
The only one even postulating one or the other is you. No one here cares if it was a conspiracy or incompetence. We're happy to shit on Trump regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
If I was dealing with a client that has a track history of stiffing his contractors, I, too, would have zero qualms doing whatever I can to get my money and bail.
Re: (Score:2)
If they were hiding the fact they were using it, that implies they removed or changed references in the UI. Source code changed.
You are assuming their contractor informed them that they were saving time by using an open source library.
And by "using" you mean "ripping off and passing as their own".
Or that the spokesperson that replied even has a clue about such matters and conflated building a brand new site with brand new code, or confused "new code" with "different code" relative to the last social media attempt.
Who cares what the spokesperson thought? Trump's company violated the license, Trump's company is gonna have to deal with it. It's not like it's the first time he's surrounded himself with the incompetently dishonest.
Even Gab and Parler didn't manage to fall guilty of this particular sin, it's kinda hilarious that Trump's effort is amateur hour even compared to those two.
Re:If source unmodified ... (Score:5, Interesting)
They could very well just be json files or something that the server code then transforms into html, css, js, etc, or they could even be stored in some back end database.
If something-something is stored in json files, databases, etc but then transformed into js, then by definition that is code, not data.
Most programming languages have some kind of macro pre-processors that allows you to transform code before it is run and it is trivial for any CS-major with experience of lexers and programming language construction to roll their own langauge that transforms into whatever you want, for example js. So even if the "data" you mention stored somewhere does not look like js; if it is later transformed into js and, more importantly, is subsequently run, then it is code. Period.
But this is all a hypothetical discussion. If the Mastodon team is issuing this notice, then they are pretty sure that TMTG has done something that violates the license. They wouldn't bother otherwise.
Especially in the case of a database, I doubt any sane license, especially an OSS license, would require that you make all of the data stored on the servers (including PII, usernames, passwords, etc) public.
If you are storing code for the application in the same tables as your user data, you are doing it wrong. I mean seriously wrong. Wrong as in, "you should never ever be given a job in software development again"-wrong. So even if an application would store code in a database, if you share the code you only share the relevant schemas or tables, not the data from other schemas/tables.
But you are right in that no sane OSS license requires you to share your user data, so this thing about sharing your entire database is merely a strawman. The second "S" in "OSS" should give you all the information to you need to decipher what the license requires you to share.
Re: (Score:2)
If something-something is stored in json files, databases, etc but then transformed into js, then by definition that is code, not data.
I find it incredibly hard to follow your line of thinking. Just because code processes data doesn't make data "code" in any legal or licensable term.
Re: If source unmodified ... (Score:2)
While he wasn't clear that is exactly what he said. He also called programmers idiots for storing data in the same structure as actual code.
This is what Missouri did with teacher SSN recently. Stored data (SSN's) directly in the code. Bad programers do it all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
If something-something is stored in json files, databases, etc but then transformed into js, then by definition that is code, not data.
Most programming languages have some kind of macro pre-processors that allows you to transform code before it is run and it is trivial for any CS-major with experience of lexers and programming language construction to roll their own langauge that transforms into whatever you want, for example js. So even if the "data" you mention stored somewhere does not look like js; if it is later transformed into js and, more importantly, is subsequently run, then it is code. Period.
That makes all of zero sense. With your line of thinking, everything compiled with GCC would be covered under the GPL because you write psuedocode that GCC then compiles into machine code. That's not how the GPL works.
Re: (Score:2)
If something-something is stored in json files, databases, etc but then transformed into js, then by definition that is code, not data.
Most programming languages have some kind of macro pre-processors that allows you to transform code before it is run and it is trivial for any CS-major with experience of lexers and programming language construction to roll their own langauge that transforms into whatever you want, for example js. So even if the "data" you mention stored somewhere does not look like js; if it is later transformed into js and, more importantly, is subsequently run, then it is code. Period.
That makes all of zero sense. With your line of thinking, everything compiled with GCC would be covered under the GPL because you write psuedocode that GCC then compiles into machine code. That's not how the GPL works.
No, read again what I wrote. TL;DR: "Data" that is run, is not data, it is code.
I used an example of preprocessors that transforms code in one form into another (ie macros) to show that this is nothing novel, it has been used for ages. And you wouldn't expect someone to ship C-code with the all macros stripped out, would you? It would not be complete. OSS = Open Source Software. We are sharing the source, in whatever form that source is in.
I have emphasized parts of what you wrote:
They could very well just be (1) json files or something that the (2) server code then transforms into html, css, (3) js, etc, or they could even be stored in some back end database.
Which reads as (1) "some f
Re: (Score:2)
No, read again what I wrote. TL;DR: "Data" that is run, is not data, it is code.
I used an example of preprocessors that transforms code in one form into another (ie macros) to show that this is nothing novel, it has been used for ages. And you wouldn't expect someone to ship C-code with the all macros stripped out, would you? It would not be complete. OSS = Open Source Software. We are sharing the source, in whatever form that source is in.
No that is not at all comparable. C macros generate code that is built at compile time into the resultant binary. This is a totally different situation. Here we would have json data files that aren't needed to compile the binaries that ultimately run on the server. The binaries and the source code needed to generate the binaries are what is covered under the GPL, nothing else is.
Which reads as (1) "some form of source" that is (2) "compiled/interpreted" into (3) "another form of code". It matters not if the compiler or interpreter is part of your program or separate. The input to it is code.
Again, if that were the case, then all code compiled by GCC would be subject to the GPL. But that is not the case, you can use GCC
Re: (Score:2)
Which reads as (1) "some form of source" that is (2) "compiled/interpreted" into (3) "another form of code". It matters not if the compiler or interpreter is part of your program or separate. The input to it is code.
Again, if that were the case, then all code compiled by GCC would be subject to the GPL. But that is not the case, you can use GCC to compile code that you can then license however you choose.
You are confusing two key concepts, (1) what the code is for and (2) who compiles/interprets the code.
Ask yourself: Is the "data" being transformed into js (that you suggested could be stored as json or in a database) relevant to the operation of Mastodon? If so, it is code that must be shared under the license. It is not data, it is code.
Likewise, if the code you compile with GCC is part of GCC, you must also share it. But it has nothing to do with you using GCC for the compilation step, it has only to do
Re: (Score:2)
You are confusing two key concepts, (1) what the code is for and (2) who compiles/interprets the code.
Ask yourself: Is the "data" being transformed into js (that you suggested could be stored as json or in a database) relevant to the operation of Mastodon? If so, it is code that must be shared under the license. It is not data, it is code.
The entire database would be relevant to the operation of Mastodon as I doubt Mastodon would even work without one.
JSON itself is specifically designed to only hold data, in fact the designer removed commenting from the specification because he saw people adding compiler directives into comments, which amounts to code, which breaks interoperability.
More importantly, your hypothetical example (hypothetical since you yourself said that you know nothing about Mastodon) is irrelevant since the Mastodon team has already stated their position and it doesn't support your view on the case.
Mastodon hasn't stated anything that would either agree or disagree with my comments (actually my position is and always has been in agreement with theirs.) My c
Re: (Score:2)
The entire database would be relevant to the operation of Mastodon as I doubt Mastodon would even work without one.
And you now claim that you transform every single piece of data in that database into js in your hypothetical example? Textbook example of moving goalposts.
Wow, I fell for a troll. Plonk!
Who cares? (Score:2)
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but you have to admit, Trump out-did them all again. His site already became a joke before it got even launched.
Re: Who cares? (Score:2)
Workaround ? (Score:3)
What do you internet lawyers think?
Derivative work doesn't matter when you have no li (Score:2)
Derivative work wouldn't be issue. The issue would be you have no license to use the code at that point.
Imagine you created some code. You tell me that I can use your code, that you'll license it to me, if I give you $5. That works, right, you can sell your software?
Imagine you created some code. You tell me that I can use your code, that you'll license it to me, if I give you a hot dog That works, right? You can trade your code /. license for a hot dog.
Imagine you created some code. You tell me that I ca
Re: (Score:2)
Derivative work wouldn't be issue. The issue would be you have no license to use the code at that point.
Mastadon prohibits the use of a non-GPL library? I could not add some shim to Mastadon code to call a Win32 API function in a proprietary Microsoft DLL. The shim would GPL'd.
Re: (Score:2)
Mastadon prohibits the use of a non-GPL library? I could not add some shim to Mastadon code to call a Win32 API function in a proprietary Microsoft DLL. The shim would GPL'd.
That's quite complex and like most law, motivation is often more important than action and the way you do thinks can be as important as what.
If the API function is a standard operating system part and your shim also worked on other operating systems to provide the same function in different ways then you would be golden.
If you were working for Microsoft and the API function, for example, transferred control of the internals of Mastodon to some communications user interface in Windows thus allowing you to su
Re: (Score:2)
Software is a literary work, and there is no such thing as a copyright license that can prevent you from reading a book.
Substitute "license" for "farm" to figure out where your logic fails:
"I'll sell you my farm for $5"
"I'll sell you my farm for a hot dog"
"I'll sell you my farm for you eating a hot dog"
"I'll sell you my farm if you don't pull any shenanigans" — This fails, because once you're the new owner of the farm (or the license) you can do whatever you want with it.
A copyright license is only ne
Re: (Score:2)
"I'll sell you my farm if you don't pull any shenanigans" — This fails, because once you're the new owner of the farm (or the license) you can do whatever you want with it.
You do not own or buy a license.
Your analogy does not make sense - it would be closer to (but still not the same as) renting the farm. If I rent your farm, there are conditions: I am for example not allowed to tear the farm down without your explicit permission.
Likewise, using software is legally the same as reading a book (software is considered a literary work).
Non sequitur.
Re: (Score:2)
You do not own or buy a license.
Non sequitur.
Yes, there's different kinds of copyrights. Mechanical, synchronization, etc.
But when we're talking about books, literary works, etc, you actually own the book, and you cannot attach terms and conditions to its use. Once you own a book, you can't legally copy it, but you can read it as many times as you like and resell it to whoever you wish. Correct?
In US copyright law, software is a kind of literary work.
Surely you can put two and two together.
This is why we find it so offensive when companies hide in the
Re: (Score:2)
When they downloaded Mastadon, they copied it to their server. They have made many copies of the software.
Re: (Score:2)
The server made the copy, not the recipient. You don't need a copyright license to receive a work that you requested. You certainly don't need a copyright license to receive a work from the copyright holder.
Re: (Score:2)
The server made the copy, not the recipient.
If you ever go to court, I suggest not trying that argument. The judge might actually snicker.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, that's literally how it works. If you are a movie studio, and you find out that people are downloading your movie, you sue the person hosting it, not the people downloading it.
Re: (Score:2)
No lol. You can sue both.
Re: (Score:2)
[Citation needed]
You were literally just telling me I would get laughed out of court if I sued the server operator. That's plainly false, and in any event, the conversation is about downloading a copy of software provided by the copyright holder. If you went to a judge and said "Well yes I provided him a copy of the book, he just doesn't have a license to read it", you most definitely would get laughed out.
The reason movie studios can sue P2P users is because every downloader is also an uploader. When a stu
Re: (Score:2)
You argument is that it's entirely legal to download a copy, just not share it.
For that, you are ignorant and have done very little real research on the topic. That is why you would be laughed out of court.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, when you make this claim, you're implicitly saying that every person who ever watched a movie (illegally uploaded) on YouTube is a criminal. Surely you've watched a video that was later DMCA'd, right?
I'll admit I'm wrong if you can at least least admit that's a terrible state of affairs.
Re: (Score:2)
Look, when you make this claim, you're implicitly saying that every person who ever watched a movie (illegally uploaded) on YouTube is a criminal. Surely you've watched a video that was later DMCA'd, right?
No, not a criminal. Criminal copyright violations are different than civil copyright violations.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not even trying, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm mocking you lol. You don't know what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
The parts of your code that won't work without the library are a derivative work of the library. If that code is solely for interoperability, then it's fair use. For example, if you port your game from Nintendo to Sony, then Sony can't claim your game is a derivative work just because you are using their graphics libraries: you are using their graphics libraries for interoperability purposes.
Modern copyright cases tend to use the Abstraction, filtration, comparison test [zerobugsan...faster.net]. In the past, people thought that thi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Workaround ? (Score:4, Insightful)
A possible workaround? Put proprietary code in a separate library. Update the AGPL code to use this library (ie AGPL dynamically links to non-GPL). Release only the AGPL. Yes the FSF will say that the libs are interacting too closely but the one time a court ruled on the GPL the court said a "derivative work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some form". Galoob v. Nintendo.
;-)
What do you internet lawyers think?
The problem is, that they developed this site with the cheapest possible labour (almost certainly and ironically offshore... Please be Making India Needful Again) with no inclination to have any idea how it works. Zero thought given to security, let alone legal implications because the people behind the site think the law does not apply to them.
Their plan is to draw this out in court, then try to destroy the evidence when the whole thing fails like the last two social networks he's tried.
Re: (Score:2)
A possible workaround? Put proprietary code in a separate library. Update the AGPL code to use this library (ie AGPL dynamically links to non-GPL). Release only the AGPL. Yes the FSF will say that the libs are interacting too closely but the one time a court ruled on the GPL the court said a "derivative work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some form". Galoob v. Nintendo.
What do you internet lawyers think? ;-)
I think that their demonstrated capabilities do not match the scope of your suggested solution. This kind of thing doesn't happen accidentally. One possibility is that it never occurred to them to consult an actual lawyer about licensing issues, in which case they are unlikely to have on staff a set of lawyers and engineers who can quickly craft a system which would split things up the way you suggest. Another possibility is that the lawyers they do have are so batshit that they don't recognize the actua
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't any different than linux kernel vs user space. It's not like library that runs on linux has to be GPL'd.
AGPL v3 may be different than GPL v2 in this context.
Re: (Score:3)
The Linux kernel has a license that specifically says things in user space don't need to fall under the GPL.
Does the DMCA apply here? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If the app uses copyrighted software, doesn't that mean Mastodon's authors can submit a Digital Mastodon Copyright Act request to have the app pulled from the standard app stores, and to the ISP to have any direct downloads pulled as well? Or wouldn't that apply here?
I may be wrong, but I don't believe the "Digital Mastodon Copyright Act" ever was passed into law.
Re: Does the DMCA apply here? (Score:2)
Wouldnâ(TM)t apply. This is just a media stunt by the Mastodon creators, the only people that have standing according to the AGPL are the actual users of the software. Since you can safely assume Rochko here is a never-Trumper, he probably wouldnâ(TM)t be caught dead on the platform.
People have the assumption that because itâ(TM)s open source, you are required to give back to the community. But for GPL-style license, the agreement is between customers and the business that sells them the soft
TMNT (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Drain the swamp. Fill it with fire trolls.
This is all well and good (Score:2)
A bit premature.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A bit premature.. (Score:4, Insightful)
but we don't do things like post source changes and attach licenses before we actually release.
But do you do it before you go to a public preview? This site got far enough to allow people to register after sending invites out. Not only that, they got far enough that moderators had to step in and already ban accounts breaking the sites Terms of Service during the preview phase.
You can't justifiably say we're already released enough that people outside our company must abide by the ToS of the product and then at the same time say your product isn't released enough to need to abide by licenses.
Re:A bit premature.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the site and app have yet to be released there isn't an issue yet.
Product release isn't the issue, it's being served on the internet that is the issue. If it's not being tested on an internal LAN (which is it not, it's an internet connected beta) then the AGPL stipulations apply.
Re: (Score:2)
While a bunch of people found a site ... Since the site and app have yet to be released
These two statements are mutually contradictory. Whether they intended it or not, if the site is publicly accessible, which it is, it’s been released. You can argue that it hasn’t yet been launched, but a release only requires that people have access.
Re:A bit premature.. (Score:4, Informative)
While a bunch of people found a site, that could have been a proof of concept.
The site was supposed to go beta in November. You think they planned to write a Twitter clone from scratch in less than a month?
Since the site and app have yet to be released there isn't an issue yet. But the day that it happens if they used Mastadon and modified the code without posting those changes or just using the code without accrediting than this letter should be sent.
The AGPL doesn't say anything about proof of concept or beta since those are both meaningless legal terms (how many years was Gmail "beta"?).
It seems obvious based on the Rochko is angry that his code is being used by Trump so he jumped the gun a little. My hope is that they do use his code and open source technologies properly (and abide by the license).
Trump's team was also calling their code "proprietary" and trying to scrub all mentions of Mastadon. They were quite obviously trying to rip off Mastadon's code and call it their own. Rochko might have been more forgiving about the "proof of concept" stage if it was clear they hadn't gotten around to publishing the changes yet, but the thing they hadn't finished was covering up the evidence of their misdeeds.
I think it's obvious anyone would be angry.
We personally use plenty of open source code at my workplace, but we don't do things like post source changes and attach licenses before we actually release.
Are you modifying that code and releasing it? In that case you are probably violating the licenses.
Re:A bit premature.. (Score:5, Funny)
Honestly, I hope that when they release the source code changes when the site goes life, they use a bunch of Trumpisms in the commit messages just to get on the Mastedon team's nerves. I can imagine it now...
"Removed the weak Mastedon logos from everywhere. Terrible logos, absolutely awful." :)
"Added the beautiful Truth logos in their place. Simply beautiful, best logos EVER."
Re: A bit premature.. (Score:5, Funny)
Codefefe
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Codefefe
Oh man, that would be beautiful. We could get clean energy just by mounting some magnets on the spinning leftists whose hair would be on fire about that.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be dirtiest energy ever used. Just imagine the language they'd be spewing as they flame God Emperor Trump on Twit.... ahem, Truth.
Re: (Score:2)
Prior art [www.fefe.de]...
Please to use correct name of site (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So many layers to this one, for both sides. I love it.
Re: (Score:2)
Pravda
Well played.
Just imagine... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
...that someone like Jared Kushner is in charge of this project & that'll give you some idea of how this'll play out.
It will result in more middle east peace accords?
Re: (Score:2)
This is done on US soil, so we'll finally have reconciliation between left and right?
Look, a man can dream, ok?
Re: (Score:2)
It will result in more middle east arms deals?
FTFY.
Look out Trump (Score:2)
Or else the next e-mail will be slightly more strongly worded than the last.
Either Mastedon goes in full blitzkrieg with a power team of lawyers, or they lose the battle. Scince they didn't chose the first case from the get go, this will likely end as the second. :-\
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't going to give a shit (Score:2)
Secret Double Probation! (Score:2)
Copyright infringement (Score:2)
That's copyright infringement, and Mastodon's copyright holder can sue.
Re: Copyright infringement (Score:2)
They can also use the copyright to have the software taken down from legitimate distributors. Like the Apple Store and Play Store. If no one can download the client to their phone, there's no way to build critical mass for a social network.
They could even have the whole thing de-indexed by Google.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: I'll be honest (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AGPL is a license to get around cloud services not distributing software, just a service.
Re: Is AGPL really that toxic? (Score:2)
Re:Is AGPL really that toxic? (Score:4, Informative)
Wow, I know nothing of AGPL specifically, but if Mastodon prevails, that would mean AGPL is an extremely toxic license.
If you think the AGPL is a "toxic" license then you're a "toxic" person, because nobody is forcing anybody to use AGPL code. It's a matter of freedom of choice (what you've got) vs. freedom from choice (what you want)
Re: Is AGPL really that toxic? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You know, you could read the license...
Assuming it's v3:
13 Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of
Re: (Score:3)
This actually raises an interesting question. We know that folks that accessed it because it's based on Mastodon and did things like create accounts because they knew how to access those features in a copy of Mastodon accessed it without permission.
So is AGPL so onerous that it requires those that access your system against your direct wish as an admin who simply didn't secure it well enough (notably a breach of relevant legislation in many countries, just because the door is open doesn't mean you get to go
Re: (Score:2)
Your logic would hold if there weren't countless screenshots, some videos and a lot of very public written confessions of Truth's (I can't type this name without feeling ridiculous) test network penetration by countless Trump haters and likely logs of the same people making those demands for code also claiming and showing evidence of their successful registrations, logons and a lot of bragging of how they knew Mastodon, so they could do those things with a test site. Remember, this is how we found out that
Re: (Score:2)
Does it include people who accessed it without your permission? For example if someone was to remotely hack your personal machine running modified AGPL code? Does the license say you must offer the modified code to the hacker? If the hacker found a way in, obviously your machine was connected to a network from which it became accessible to the hacker, so it was in effect available for the hacker to interact with, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, I know nothing of AGPL specifically
Your 5 minutes of time would be better spent reading about AGPL than mindlessly commenting about it.
Re: (Score:2)
If using AGPL code means you have to release any and all experiments you try with it
Your user handle suits you.
Re: (Score:3)
Which has what exactly to do with the licence violation?
Why the hell would Trump choose the work of a leftist as the foundation for his site? Twice so violating the license offered?
Re:The guy who runs Mastadon (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think trump ignores all laws.
In the days he was president he believed he was the law.
Look at his actions re. Stop The Steal, in none of his court cases did he bring proof, why would he, he said the election was stolen and that suffices.
Re: (Score:2)
The "twice so" referred to using a leftist's code.
Also, it's kinda ... odd that you praise a lefty for something. Stay in character, please.
Re: (Score:2)
You might have noticed that there are distinct people on /. having distinct opinions. I for one, never bragged about violating licenses, because I don't. I consider them important. One of the reasons is what we see happen here.
Re: (Score:3)
It's almost like there's more than one person here and slashdot isn't a hive mind. It's also almost like two superficially similar things aren't equivalent.
The fact that warez kiddies exist somewhere on the internet and may have at some point posted to slashdot doesn't somehow invalidate any criticism of a well funded company.
I can also support there idea of copyright while thinking that perpetual copyright should not exist and is best ignored and while thinking that the claim that every download is equal t
Re: We care about software licensing? (Score:2)
I can also support there idea Their idea. Where? Over there. They're having an idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my gosh you spotted an errant autocorrect! Well done have a cookie.
It corrected the to there, so you didn't quite get that right. You can keep the cookie for effort though.
Re: (Score:2)
He'll never go away as long as we keep talking about Him.
He won't just go away if the people who don't like him don't keep talking about him, because so many people do like him and will keep talking about him. Meanwhile not talking about him means being ignorant of what malfeasance he's up to now, which prevents you from doing anything about it.
Ignorance is bliss right up until what you're ignorant of sneaks up and drills you in the ass.
Re: (Score:2)
This is literally religious way of talking about the devil. You aren't even allowed to name him, when you're talking about him. The thing you're complaining is on point, but the way you go about it is actually worse than the thing you complaining about.
Name the devil when you criticise him, be it for a reason or not. Not naming him makes him stronger, as borders of his mental presence potential becomes even more great.
Re: (Score:2)
This is literally religious way of talking about the devil.
And whether his followers recognize it or not, he is the leader of a religious movement.
Not naming him makes him stronger, as borders of his mental presence potential becomes even more great.
I would prefer to not discuss him at all, really. He thrives on media attention. The only way to get rid of him is to stop discussing him entirely. You can't reason with him any more than you could try to negotiate your way out of a burning building. He is surrounded by religious zealots who will defend him to the end of time; you can't reason with them either. All you can do is try to mitigate their recruitment e
Re: (Score:2)
>And whether his followers recognize it or not, he is the leader of a religious movement.
Problem being, that he's the leader of TDS movement. His followers treat him like a politician. The only ones treating him as a deity are those that oppose him.
People like you.
Re: (Score:2)
And whether his followers recognize it or not, he is the leader of a religious movement.
Problem being, that he's the leader of TDS movement. His followers treat him like a politician.
Followers of the Bushes and followers of Reagan regarded them as politicians (political giants but politicians nonetheless). Followers of Trump are a different breed (some of them are converted Reaganites but they are a subfraction of what propels Trump). This type of open worship is something we haven't seen before. No previous politician ever had the power to command an army via Twitter. No previous politician was ever deified into a Rambo-esque war victor on flags. No previous politician ever drove
Re: (Score:2)
You continue to project your religious beliefs upon others. Just because you are a deeply religious person, it doesn't mean that those on the other side are.
Not a new phenomena either. A lot of fanatical muslims and christians openly claim that atheist movement is just religious fanatics for the devil.