this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2025
227 points (89.0% liked)
Linux
50472 readers
1613 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That license does nothing.
Your comments aren’t licensed because you put something in them. It’s stopping nothing. Licensing is an agreement, and requires parties to consent. You don’t just magically force licenses onto people.
If this was real I could license my comments where if you read them, you owe me 10k.
This is the digital equivalent of sovereign citizens.
So, if I go to a library, pick a book and start reading it, I am then free to completely copy it because I didn’t agree to any licensing?
You agreed to the ToS given by the library.
Hence why you have to get a library card to check out a book.
No, it doesn't matter if the book is at a library or on my friend's bookshelf, copyright law is literally the right to copy the thing. So if I make an illegal copy, I'm breaking copyright law. The "ToS" I've "agreed" to is the law of the country I'm in.
I don’t think it’s equivalent to sovereign citizens. OP is the author of their comment and therefore has the copyrights. As the author one can license their work as all rights reserved or other permissive licenses.
OP chooses to license their work as Creative Commons.
They’re not forcing you to accept the license, it’s your local government that enforces copyright.
The reason why this might work on Lemmy but not on corporate Social media is that corporate social media often have terms of service that require you to give them ownership/rights/etc. Lemmy has no such ToC.
Actually, Safe Harbor laws would encompass social media sites as well, so it would work there as well.
Either corporations own the content you post and are responsible for it, or they just host your content you post that you own and are immune from harm for the content. The law is currently the latter, and not the former.
Also, law trumps ToS's.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
I don’t think the ToS approach would be invalidated here via your Safe Harbor fork theory.
The ToS could state something like “you give us a worldwide perpetual right to use your content in any way we want including granting this right to whom we designate”
You still own your content but by having an account you agree to the ToS that lets them do what they want.
They just host it and are safe.
woosh
In case you want your license declaration to look the same as mine (instead of just being a quote), you can copy and paste in the following text ...
[~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode.en)~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
It makes me feel good. That's something.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
Can't argue with that. I'm glad you've found something that you enjoy.
Well, I'd enjoy it more if people (in general) stopped bothering me about using a license for my content, than I actually do using a license for my content. 😜
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
Do you spend a lot of time arguing with people over it?
Allot more than I wish, I really try not to. Even today, I keep asking people to not rehash it, and lets just talk about the topic my comment was posted in. But for some strange reason people just won't let it go, and push to talk about it.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
Well like it or not, your footer is just a part of your comments, and so people are invited to respond however they wish when you post it on lemmy. If you don't like people making the same replies, you can simply stop posting the same content in every comment.
I am getting annoyed on your behalf lol. Why do people feel the need to screech at others doing something harmless when they could just shut up and ignore it is beyond me. Not a fair comparison but it does feel like republicans shouting at trans people.
I feel like it somehow relates to Cunningham's Law but i can't figure out how to articulate it.
Thanks, appreciate the support!
It's amazing how bent out of shape some people get about this, both currently, as well as about tenish months ago when I last was on Lemmy (check out my comment history from that time period if you really want to get annoyed).
I got to imagine that its people who want to farm the comments for their LLMs training, that are trying to prevent the popular usage of people licensing their content.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
And I'm assuming just having "all content licesed under the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0" in your bio wouldn't work?
I'm not sure if I understand your question.
I believe it does work. Or at least it should, and I shouldn't give up my right to license my own content just because enforcement of laws is lax.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
Well, scrapers probably would ignore it.
Honestly I don't believe it would help myself but who am I to tell you what to do. As someone else mentioned, it's probably people who simply have to correct others when they don't share the option. Doubt it would be anything like being in support of LLMs, probably the opposite.
It would help if the companies that are training their LLMs honor content creators licenses. If they ignore the law in that, then it would in theory need to be policed.
In either case, its a quick copy/paste on my part, so /shrug.
I don't know. It would behoove those who need our content to train their LLMs to intimidate/redirect people away from licensing their content. And I can't imagine regular people getting so caught up to spend so much time on this issue. If you look through my comment history, starting 9-10 months ago, and see how many replies I've gotten, and even how posts talk about this issue (https://lemmy.world/post/14942506), I can't imagine a single link would cause all of that. Theres got to be something more to it than that.
~This~ ~comment~ ~is~ ~licensed~ ~under~ ~CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0~
I was thinking "okay this somewhat unconventional but whatever" until I read this. Use greasemonkey or something for the love of Christ!