So the TZM frontpage still talks about a future event in 2021...
I saw them a little active on Twitter this past year or two, since I can follow via Friendica. But not much going on. It is sad to see such movements dissolve....
Also TVP...last "news" on their website was from 4 months ago, and that's a news that I am really surprised to see it coming from TVP....
Jacque and Roxanne were so against associating TVP with any such low tech and local project...idk what happened there.... show more
So the TZM frontpage still talks about a future event in 2021...
I saw them a little active on Twitter this past year or two, since I can follow via Friendica. But not much going on. It is sad to see such movements dissolve....
Also TVP...last "news" on their website was from 4 months ago, and that's a news that I am really surprised to see it coming from TVP....
Jacque and Roxanne were so against associating TVP with any such low tech and local project...idk what happened there....
As for their RBE website that was announced as this big thing....is dead. If you look at their "progress" then for the past 3 years is none. Same percentage bars that I never thought amount to anything...see the same page via waybackmachine.
The previous news was still about this and was almost a year old, and the one before, 2 years old. So their only news is once a year.
They also post on Twitter from time to time, but all are recycled old posts....
TZM without Peter felt empty even years ago. It was Peter Joseph that created this basically, and the one active and so on. He is still active, mostly ranting on Twitter although he was banned weeks ago so no more Twitter rants. I think he found refuge on Facebook...worst place out of all. Told him to come to the Fediverse but ofc he will never reply to my 5 emails I ever sent to him. I can't follow him now since I need a FB account to do so, and fuck that.
He still does his podcast tho and I keep an eye (or ear) on it. I've heard he works on Zeitgeist 4, and he released some 2 years ago a docu-drama thingy that for me was too artistic.
But hey, the guy tries and is one of the 2 or so that are still active since 2010s when we all kinda started to scream out loud.
Same TVP is dead without Jacque Fresco...he was the soul of the project. After he died, TVP died too.
It is sad to be honest...both of these organizations had a lot of good/important things to say, even if I disagree now with some of the things they say. I have collaborated with TVP for some 4 years, and been close to a bunch of TZM people for several years too. But now, from what I can tell, both of these are truly dead. Again, unfortunately.
I wish I could see them being active again, and screaming how this monetary system fucks things up. Of course, I'd be annoyed that they don't talk about trade and just "money", but hey we have a lot more in common so we could work on that. Or could we? Because I could not work that out with TVP....
2009 to 2014 or so were "magical" years for me, in the sense that my (our) screaming was loud and loud. TZM and TVP were huge, they had world tours with lots of people coming at their talks; Zeitgeist documentaries were getting millions of views, and TROM came out as a new thingy that attracted hundreds of thousands of eyeballs. Occupy Wall-street, protest against money and the rich...the Internet was fuming with these.
Felt like a global movement against money. A step closer to "trade". I feel this nostalgia thinking about this...almost like I am getting deeply sad....because then I felt like things are rolling, and greater things will happen.
And here we are more than a decade later....silence.
But TROM never died and I plan to push it harder and harder.
TROM continues and we work on a huge ass documentary + other things. 30+ active projects under the TROM umbrella, and more to come. We are not dead, we'alive and kicking. Screaming, doing. All that. And I am making reserves of motivational juice so that I am going to use that as a rocket booster after TROM II is released. I want to challenge "the world" with this "trade is the origin of most problems". I (we) have a lot to fucking say! I am still young, and I am still motivated. I have time and energy. I have not gave up!
I always thought that TVP & TZM were much much bigger and had lots of followers, so I'm surprised to know that they've been in decline. I agree this is kinda sad....
I think it was on the TROM website where I read this quote, or maybe on the book, but it said something like "Projects and people die, ideas survive" So maybe there are still many people who were inspired by these ideas, all is not lost. TROM II and Sasha's book could have an impact, so let's see.....
They were a lot bigger, but now idk...from what I can tell they faded away kinda. They themselves are not active it seems, at all. So even if they have some "followers" those will get bored eventually.
"Projects and people die, ideas survive" - yes I used to say this after I left TVP, as a way to emphasize on the ideas behind such projects not the projects themselves or the people behind them.
But yeah....let's see....after TROM II and the book will be released. They won't be the end of anything, but the beginning of new things to come from us. ;)
Yes, TROM II especially feels like a new beginning, and the book too maybe it'd attract more people to check out this project. And at this point we already have like a dozen different services and such, its not just a simple documentary like how it was when you first started, its much bigger than that.
I finally got back to work on the TROM II documentary. I got stuck with the second part, the end of it. I think I may have cracked it finally. Tomorrow I'll have to watch the entire part to see how it is. Likely I will move to the 3rd part and if necessary come back to it after I finish the other parts. I am quite curious to start the 3rd part. #tromlive
If tomorrow I wake up and trom.tf no longer exists, with all of its services including this friendica instance, I'd be very sad. And it would be deeply concerning for Contabo, the hosting provider, to do such a thing for no reason at all.
I emailed them a couple of times by now and explained to them how our NItter instance is just a proxy that does not store data on the server. No reply so far but it was late in the day so understandable.
These "law" trolls...they are not humans they are robots. Humans should fuckin' go explore other planets, the oceans, fix cancer, aging and all that....not bloody spend time on nonsensical things like this...
... show more
If tomorrow I wake up and trom.tf no longer exists, with all of its services including this friendica instance, I'd be very sad. And it would be deeply concerning for Contabo, the hosting provider, to do such a thing for no reason at all.
I emailed them a couple of times by now and explained to them how our NItter instance is just a proxy that does not store data on the server. No reply so far but it was late in the day so understandable.
These "law" trolls...they are not humans they are robots. Humans should fuckin' go explore other planets, the oceans, fix cancer, aging and all that....not bloody spend time on nonsensical things like this...
The hosting provide that we use for our websites contacted us. Someone sent them an email saying:
Greetings, This is an official message from AppGate, on behalf of our Banco del Pacifico G.F. We need your cooperation in the removal of the content located in the site: https://bird.trom.tf/BancoPacificoEC The target site is the following URL(s): https://twitter.com/BancoPacificoEC We kindly ask you to shut down this content as soon as possible. We expect a prompt and affirmative response. Thanks for helping make the Internet safer. Sincerely, DTP Team - Appgate
As far as we understand BancoPacificoEC contacted them to complain that they noticed their "twitter" page accessed via our Nitter instance. But Nitter (bird.trom.tf) does not host any files, it is a proxy (twitter front-end). We have explained it all to the hosting provider. Hopefully they are smart enough to understand this. We are told if this is not solved in 12h they will shut down our trom.tf server.
These complaints come from humans that have no idea how the internet works or what it is. We will update you whenever we get a response from them. #tromlive
I see the Software Freedom Conservancy joined our Peertube instance. Here is their channel videos.trom.tf/c/software_free… - finally saner people joining. Please more! We have plenty of resources. #tromlive
Software Freedom Conservancy is a nonprofit organization centered around ethical technology. Our mission is to ensure the right to repair, improve and reinstall software.
When Snowden showed us the NSA leak, When Putin's exposed by Navalny the "prick", When COVID-19 hits hard like a brick....
The active of us, they scream and they try The rest of the world, observes and goes by, The climate, the plastic....we're going to die?
Scientists tell us, there is no more time: the bees they are dying, the ocean is hot, the corals are bleaching, the people are fucked;
The voices of all who tell us the truth, Became like a music, repeating on mute.
And who has the time to care or to act, When Putin decides it is time to attack: bombs and guns, dead people in slums; fake news, fake clues, fake people, CONFUSE!
... show more
When Snowden showed us the NSA leak, When Putin's exposed by Navalny the "prick", When COVID-19 hits hard like a brick....
The active of us, they scream and they try The rest of the world, observes and goes by, The climate, the plastic....we're going to die?
Scientists tell us, there is no more time: the bees they are dying, the ocean is hot, the corals are bleaching, the people are fucked;
The voices of all who tell us the truth, Became like a music, repeating on mute.
And who has the time to care or to act, When Putin decides it is time to attack: bombs and guns, dead people in slums; fake news, fake clues, fake people, CONFUSE!
Remember Iraq and Afganistan? The Syrian migrants, the sound of a gun? Remember the lies, remember the dead? Remember the suffering and the tears you shed?
Now go back to bed! These problems you see, they will never end.
And when you wake up, just use your "smart" phone One thumb is enough to scroll all alone, And read yet again, how others still scream, And how nothing changes, the future is grim.
A scandal, a war, corruption, or all, They roll day by day, tiktoking away, What's new for today?
You're busy all day, consuming, consumed Confused and abused, your anger diffused I hope you're amused!
haha I've always written these sort of things, since my old days when I had a blog in the romanian language :D - but I realized i can do them in english too. It just comes to me and I write thoughts like that rarely.
So the whole thing is satire and its talking about issues like climate change, wars, corruption, etc and also about the people who don't care about these things and spend all their day consuming media on TikTok, Facebook, etc, which also gives them a skewed perspective of what's actually happening in the world. Scientists are shouting about climate change saying we don't have enough time, but nothing changes 🙁 @tio @frankie @thebiologist837
Oh, so when you set a title for a post on Friendica, platforms like Mastodon interprets it as a blog post and so it just shows you the title with a link to the full post. Now what doesn't make much sense is that the pictures in these posts are still shown on mastodon, I don't know why 🤷 @tio @frankie @thebiologist837
I'm not sure how it shows on Pleroma, but Friendica actually supports inline images, so these images you see they're actually shown in between the lyrics. But on Mastodon all images are shown below the post, even for Friendica posts. And I think mastodon only supports 4 images maximum, Friendica doesn't have a limit like this because its a blogging platform, not a microblogging platform like mastodon.
Ugh yeah...it sucks that they are limited like that. When I add inline images I add them for a reason where I add them....can anyone screenshots how this looks like on Mastodon, Pleroma or other non-friendica platforms?
See the screenshot. Because you've set a title for this post it'll only show that title and a link to the main post, this is nice when writing blog posts. But if you didn't set a title then the post will show as a normal post, but the images will stay on the bottom 😐
hmmm I see....It is better to show it as a link to the original. But damn...I thought it can show it as it is originally. Nothing against Mastodon I think it is fantastic what they do there, but why are people flocking to platforms that are more limited in the tens of thousands, than platforms that are feature-rich!? Well I guess because people go for whatever becomes popular for whatever reasons.
I mean on Friendica you can also make short posts, but then you can make huge ones. Bot of the worlds.
Anyway....I am so glad I found Friendica and it allows me to express myself fully. I would be unable to do this on Mastodon for example.
Actually mastodon does show you the entire post like this when you don't set a title, but when you set a title for your Friendica post then mastodon will consider it as a blog post and show a link instead.
The original TROMsite.com was the most unique perhaps website I ever made and especially since it was designed for a massive documentary. You can see it archived here web.archive.org/web/2012011208…
Click those "i" buttons and such. I designed it in Photoshop then build from scratch. This is the second version, even better built by a friend called Erico. The guy was brilliant at making a website anyway you want to. The website was unique, simple, clean and very functional.
Yeah...10 years ago. Now we have too much stuff and the website-making is different...was more fun a decade ago. It still can be of course if you have the time and skills to create one. Who knows maybe I can try to release the next TROM II documentary in a similar fashion...but you can't replicate these things really. And you should not. #tromlive
And I thought I was almost done with the part 2 of TROM II :D - but I didn't like the ending much so I worked on that. Today I worked quite a lot and I think I am on a good track. But could take me a day or two to truly finish it...is this documentary ever going to end? Probably not :D. But what can I do...now that I started it I will finish it, but it is 100 times more work than I first imagined honestly...
This is the biggest and longest project I ever worked on so far.... #tromlive
If you call a software "free" then you should not trade for it. It means, it is given to you without any conditions attached to it. You should not give your data to them, your attention (ads), your currency and so forth. You can't say "free software" and sell it.
That's not free in any universe, and the language is confusing. Call it Software with the Source Code Open (public). Public Source Code Software. And then you can talk about what you are allowed to do with it, such as you can modify it, copy it, distribute it, etc..
If say Mozilla calls their VPN as "free" as in "the source code is open and you can 'fork' it", but they charge money for the service....it makes 0 sense. I can "fork" the code, ok, but can I use it with their VPN servers? No. Then what is the point of that!? Call the VPN client as "Public Source Code Software" that can be Edited/Shared/Copied or whatever "license" you want
... show more
If you call a software "free" then you should not trade for it. It means, it is given to you without any conditions attached to it. You should not give your data to them, your attention (ads), your currency and so forth. You can't say "free software" and sell it.
That's not free in any universe, and the language is confusing. Call it Software with the Source Code Open (public). Public Source Code Software. And then you can talk about what you are allowed to do with it, such as you can modify it, copy it, distribute it, etc..
If say Mozilla calls their VPN as "free" as in "the source code is open and you can 'fork' it", but they charge money for the service....it makes 0 sense. I can "fork" the code, ok, but can I use it with their VPN servers? No. Then what is the point of that!? Call the VPN client as "Public Source Code Software" that can be Edited/Shared/Copied or whatever "license" you want to attach to it. And call it a day. I am not saying they do that, but I see in their FAQ this:
Weird to say their "competitors" are "free" VPNs. Anyhow...
Imagine if I say "We have free applepies come and get some".
You come to my place and I say "It costs you 15$ a pie". Because you see, the recipe for the applepie is free, you can come and get it and make your own applepie, if you buy the ingredients and cook it yourself....
This would be ridiculous. I can call my applepie as "free applepie recipe" and I'd be a lot more clear. But that's how they are doing with many "free and open source software" that are sold. Imagine the fuckery.
I am quite annoyed by this "free software" as in "freedom" but not "free beer", whatever the bullshit. Look, if this X piece of software is called "Free Software" but I have to trade my data, or currency, or attention to it, then it is EVERYTHING but free.
Insane how the word "free" makes 0 sense nowadays.
At the end of the day, if humans were not to forcefully live under a trade system where ownership and the accumulation of stuff is important for trading reasons, they would not give a shit about these. They would make some software and whatever, forget about licenses. Take it, fork it, share it, who the fuck cares. The only reason they care about it today, is because they can lose their trade advantage. If you take my shit (software) and trade it, I will lose. 'cause I also have to trade for food and stuff. So this system forces us to be scumbags with each other.
I created a lot of books, all are available here tromsite.com/books/ - are they "free", what license are they under? People ask.
Fuck this nonsense. I do not trade them so I do not care. They are there and are trade-free for anyone, you do not have to give me anything in return. Do what you want with them. That's how we all should be. And I had to invent this trade-free thing/idea simply because the "free" had no more meaning in today's world.
The struggle is real, companies, charlatans - well merchants of all shapes and forms - are gonna maximize their trade advantage and skills, and in doing so they are abusing, raping, concepts like "free".
If a software is only available to you for a limited amount of time, then you have to trade currency to use it, IT IS NOT FREE.
If a software locks certain features unless you trade currency to unlock them, then IT IS NOT FREE.
If a software puts ads into it, so you have to trade your attention, then IT IS NOT FREE.
If a software mines your data, IT IS NOT FREE.
Got it? :D
We have a trade-free library of hundreds of apps here tromjaro.com/apps/ - these are properly "free" apps. That's the difference.
Humans...wasting their time on this planet with licenses, rules, laws, fuckery....focus on solving cancer, explore other worlds, understand the nature, etc..
I am quite annoyed by this "free software" as in "freedom" but not "free beer", whatever the bullshit.
Freedom is a very broad concept, that includes free from currency exchange, but is not at all limited to it. In general a freedom is a freedom from one constraint. Free software has a very precise definition in terms of four "fondamental" freedoms. This is an absolutely correct use of the word "free".
Just because it is not free in the one meaning you have in mind doesn't mean it is not free in any sense. Using the word in another meaning than your favorite one is not abusing it.
I can "fork" the code, ok, but can I use it with their VPN servers?
It makes sense to call a software free and to sell a paid service based on it, as long as you don't call the service itself "free". Is Nextcloud free?
The only reason they care about it today, is because they can lose their trade advantage.
How are the free CC0, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA about keeping a trade advantage though? How about the GPL, the MIT, the Apache, ... ?
Free software, free beer, free housing, free food, free access, we use the word "free" mostly to mean "money free". That's how it evolved, in contrast to "paid" that we are forced to in this trade based society. That being said, calling it "free software" that costs 10$ is very unusual and thus very confusing.
Yes I know what the "freedoms" of FOSS are, we even made a few videos about it, but my point was that it is confusing and nonsensical to even have such approaches.
Just because it is not free in the one meaning you have in mind doesn't mean it is not free in any sense.
In a trade based society free is associated with the opposite of trade. Free housing, free meal, free water, free....something else. Free software ignores exactly that "freedom" which is the most popular one. Free Software means you can sell it, mine people's data (data trade), insert ads into it, and so much more. However you can edit, redistribute the code, and a few more things. That is why it is hellish confusing.
It makes sense to call a software free
... show more
Free software, free beer, free housing, free food, free access, we use the word "free" mostly to mean "money free". That's how it evolved, in contrast to "paid" that we are forced to in this trade based society. That being said, calling it "free software" that costs 10$ is very unusual and thus very confusing.
Yes I know what the "freedoms" of FOSS are, we even made a few videos about it, but my point was that it is confusing and nonsensical to even have such approaches.
Just because it is not free in the one meaning you have in mind doesn't mean it is not free in any sense.
In a trade based society free is associated with the opposite of trade. Free housing, free meal, free water, free....something else. Free software ignores exactly that "freedom" which is the most popular one. Free Software means you can sell it, mine people's data (data trade), insert ads into it, and so much more. However you can edit, redistribute the code, and a few more things. That is why it is hellish confusing.
It makes sense to call a software free and to sell a paid service based on it, as long as you don't call the service itself "free".
That is the service, the software itself. Nextckoud for example is a trade-free software since you can grab the source code and install on your server and have it work as Nextcloud. You can not do that with Mozilla's VPN. They have it baked in their own VPN and servers. Unless you setup your own VPN service and use that somehow as the client, then sure. But it is light years away from Nextcloud or similar services.
How are the free CC0, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA about keeping a trade advantage though? How about the GPL, the MIT, the Apache, ... ?
Because they want to avoid companies from abusing these pieces of software and later on be sued by them. Unfortunately if you don't attach any such license today to your software Microsoft can grab it and slap a proprietary license and even you can't use it anymore. The truth is even with these licenses everyone does as they wish.
Yes I know what the "freedoms" of FOSS are, [...] but my point was that it is confusing [...] to even have such approaches.
In a trade based society free is associated with the opposite of trade.
The confusion arises from the English language, which uses the same word "free" to mean "gratis". In French, when I say "libre" it is clear that it has nothing to do with "gratuit". This is why, even in English, people often use FLOSS, with L for Libre.
I agree many people are still confused with that, but the solution is to edicate them to make it less confusing, rather than just erasing the difficult concept
Yes I know what the "freedoms" of FOSS are, [...] but my point was that it is [...] nonsensical to even have such approaches.
What is nonsensical about such an approach? Those freedoms make sense, granting them makes sense.
Because they want to avoid companies from abusing these pieces of software and later on be sued by them
It is a legal advantage then, not a
... show more
Yes I know what the "freedoms" of FOSS are, [...] but my point was that it is confusing [...] to even have such approaches.
In a trade based society free is associated with the opposite of trade.
The confusion arises from the English language, which uses the same word "free" to mean "gratis". In French, when I say "libre" it is clear that it has nothing to do with "gratuit". This is why, even in English, people often use FLOSS, with L for Libre.
I agree many people are still confused with that, but the solution is to edicate them to make it less confusing, rather than just erasing the difficult concept
Yes I know what the "freedoms" of FOSS are, [...] but my point was that it is [...] nonsensical to even have such approaches.
What is nonsensical about such an approach? Those freedoms make sense, granting them makes sense.
Because they want to avoid companies from abusing these pieces of software and later on be sued by them
It is a legal advantage then, not a trading one. It would still exist in a society that has no trade but only a law that requires to cite the author of some piece of work.
Keeping a company from usurping author's rights does not necessarily have anything to do with a trading potential. One may want to avoid their words be put out of context to advocate for the opposite opinion. One may also want people to know that they are the author so that they can come to them for question, instead of a company that could misreply for evil purposes.
Licenses can also be used to promote trade-free approaches. Copyleft licences can legally ensure that a modified free software stays free. CC-BY-NC license can legally forbid to use the work for trading purpose.
Nextckoud for example is a trade-free software since you can grab the source code and install on your server and have it work as Nextcloud.
You literally said "I can "fork" the code, ok, but can I use it with their [...] servers?", as a way to argue that Mozilla VPN is not free, this would also make Nextcloud non-free.
Now the point is that Mozilla VPN is just not free. So instead of raging against the definition of free software, you should probably just complain that Mozilla VPN is not one...
The confusion arises from the English language, which uses the same word "free" to mean "gratis".
And yet this is an english-born idea. So perhaps they should have chosen a better wording for it. Of course the context takes care of this, but here the association of free-software with also paid-for software that can be the same thing, is utterly confusing.
What is nonsensical about such an approach?
Like I explained in the post, it is nonsensical to even have such labels/licenses. People should just do things, and that's it. Like we do at TROM. Or others who are doing similar work.
It is a legal advantage then, not a trading one. It would still exist in a society that has no trade but only a law that requires to cite the author of some piece of work.
Heh and this is the interesting point now, why a society where trade is not the main thing, would even have such a law? Licenses are to protect the ownership of digital stuff. But why? Because people are mean and egocentric and want their na
... show more
The confusion arises from the English language, which uses the same word "free" to mean "gratis".
And yet this is an english-born idea. So perhaps they should have chosen a better wording for it. Of course the context takes care of this, but here the association of free-software with also paid-for software that can be the same thing, is utterly confusing.
What is nonsensical about such an approach?
Like I explained in the post, it is nonsensical to even have such labels/licenses. People should just do things, and that's it. Like we do at TROM. Or others who are doing similar work.
It is a legal advantage then, not a trading one. It would still exist in a society that has no trade but only a law that requires to cite the author of some piece of work.
Heh and this is the interesting point now, why a society where trade is not the main thing, would even have such a law? Licenses are to protect the ownership of digital stuff. But why? Because people are mean and egocentric and want their name on the software? No. Because they use that enforced ownership to either gain some trading advantages (only I can sell it) or avoid being punished in the game of trade, where others can grab your software and trade it, thus making it not available for you, or you may be sued if you are using it. So it is all-about-that-trade.
Licenses can also be used to promote trade-free approaches.
Why not labels, and not licenses? We use the "trade-free" label and attach it to our stuff, but it is not a license, meaning we do not "mandate" this or that. Difference.
Copyleft licences can legally ensure that a modified free software stays free.
And that's what I'm talking about. It is necessary in a trade-based society else why would it matter? Say I release a video player and label it trade-free. Or do not label it. I publish the source code and that's all. Anyone can grab do whatever they want, etc.. No rules, no laws. Simple. Efficient. That's how the world should be if it were to be saner.
You literally said "I can "fork" the code, ok, but can I use it with their [...] servers?", as a way to argue that Mozilla VPN is not free, this would also make Nextcloud non-free.
I am confused. What? I NEED Mozilla's VPN servers/proxies else their VPN client is a dead piece of software. I do not need anything from Nextcloud. I can install it on my server and has all of the features of Nextcloud. The Mozilla VPN client has no purpose other than connecting to other servers around the world to let you change your IP. And since this last part is under a paywall of Mozilla, their client is a dead piece of software unless you can fork it and have your own servers around the world and set them like that. Isn't that the case?
MegaSync has their desktop client as open source. So? Can it be used for anything other than the MegaSync services?
So perhaps they should have chosen a better wording for it.
Does a better wording exist in english though? Hence borrowing "libre" from French or Spanish.
why a society where trade is not the main thing, would even have such a law?
I provided two motivations for that: - avoiding one's word being taken out of context to mean something else - have users' questions directed to the right person
I think the latter is very important, and is also why scientific publications are signed.
To this you can also add that usurping someone's work as our own is also misrepresenting our own capacities, hence abusing anyone trusting us to reproduce this quality of work.
And that's what I'm talking about. It is necessary in a trade-based society else why would it matter?
Of course, promoting a trade-free approach only makes sense in a trade-based society. I think you got slightly confused with the structure of my comment.
I NEED Mozilla's VPN servers/proxies
... show more
So perhaps they should have chosen a better wording for it.
Does a better wording exist in english though? Hence borrowing "libre" from French or Spanish.
why a society where trade is not the main thing, would even have such a law?
I provided two motivations for that: - avoiding one's word being taken out of context to mean something else - have users' questions directed to the right person
I think the latter is very important, and is also why scientific publications are signed.
To this you can also add that usurping someone's work as our own is also misrepresenting our own capacities, hence abusing anyone trusting us to reproduce this quality of work.
And that's what I'm talking about. It is necessary in a trade-based society else why would it matter?
Of course, promoting a trade-free approach only makes sense in a trade-based society. I think you got slightly confused with the structure of my comment.
I NEED Mozilla's VPN servers/proxies else their VPN client is a dead piece of software.
You would not need their servers if their VPN (I mean both client-side and server-side) was free, you would only need some servers. In fact, it could also be the case if their client only was free, as long as it has an API that one can use in their server-side software.
unless you can fork it and have your own servers around the world and set them like that.
Yes, that is the point, if their software was free and you could fork it and deploy it on a bunch of servers, you wouldn't need their servers. But you could still pay to use them. Just like Nextcloud.
So again, the problem is not that being a free software does not prevent it from being the heart of a paid service, it is simply that it is not a free software.
Yes Open Source Software, or Public Source Software.
I provided two motivations for that: - avoiding one's word being taken out of context to mean something else - have users' questions directed to the right person
These are not the primary motives for such licenses from what I can understand. Since these licenses imply a lot of restrictions of use. Saying that the author desires to be mentioned when his/her work is forked is one thing, the difference between licenses and how you can use or not a piece of software is another.
You would not need their servers if their VPN (I mean both client-side and server-side) was free, you would only need some servers.
True. I give you an example: Borg. We can easily implement Borg as a backup solution both as the client and as server. But Borg also provides services for a charge for borgbase.com. In such a case yes, the Borg server and client software are "free" as in trade-free, but not BorgBase.
... show more
Does a better wording exist in english though?
Yes Open Source Software, or Public Source Software.
I provided two motivations for that: - avoiding one's word being taken out of context to mean something else - have users' questions directed to the right person
These are not the primary motives for such licenses from what I can understand. Since these licenses imply a lot of restrictions of use. Saying that the author desires to be mentioned when his/her work is forked is one thing, the difference between licenses and how you can use or not a piece of software is another.
You would not need their servers if their VPN (I mean both client-side and server-side) was free, you would only need some servers.
True. I give you an example: Borg. We can easily implement Borg as a backup solution both as the client and as server. But Borg also provides services for a charge for borgbase.com. In such a case yes, the Borg server and client software are "free" as in trade-free, but not BorgBase.com. Mozilla's VPN server and client can be the same, is true, but I do not know if they are. Can one deploy a server and a client using their software easily?
But that is truly besides the point of this post. I was talking about Mozilla addressing their VPN Service, not software, and calling it "free" + the free software" ideology that is very confusing. That0s the salad I was talking about.
If Mozilla would say: "Our server and client for the VPN are Open Source and here are the things you can do with the code, but our VPN service is paid for" then such a clear message would be far better than what we have today.
Yes Open Source Software, or Public Source Software
I don't really agree : those words really carry the meaning that the code is publicly available, not that you are legally free to use it in various ways.
Why not labels, and not licenses?
I fail to see the difference between what you call a label and a very permissive license.
Since these licenses imply a lot of restrictions of use.
Depends on the license. Except maybe for the GPL, none of the licenses I cited seem that restrictive.
Personally, I mostly use free licenses for those reasons. I think it is legitimate that I get cited as the author of my work. There might also be some ego component to that, but not necessarily about money earning potential.
While it might not be the main raisons people use licenses or labels, I think it is enough to not call them nonsensical.
I don't really agree : those words really carry the meaning that the code is publicly available, not that you are legally free to use it in various ways.
That's why licenses can clear things out. It is better than calling it "free software". Much better. I don't like licenses, but is better with them + Open Source, than with them + Free Software. Anyway this is an old debate, but in terms of wording I find it a lot more confusing when using "Free Software".
I fail to see the difference between what you call a label and a very permissive license.
A license (or licence in American)[1] is an official permission or permit to do, use, or own something (as well as the document of that permission or permit).
A label is not an enforcer.
While it might not be the main raisons people use licenses or labels, I think it is enough to not call them nonsensical.
... show more
I don't really agree : those words really carry the meaning that the code is publicly available, not that you are legally free to use it in various ways.
That's why licenses can clear things out. It is better than calling it "free software". Much better. I don't like licenses, but is better with them + Open Source, than with them + Free Software. Anyway this is an old debate, but in terms of wording I find it a lot more confusing when using "Free Software".
I fail to see the difference between what you call a label and a very permissive license.
A license (or licence in American)[1] is an official permission or permit to do, use, or own something (as well as the document of that permission or permit).
A label is not an enforcer.
While it might not be the main raisons people use licenses or labels, I think it is enough to not call them nonsensical.
From what I know licenses are a "legal" reinforcement of some ideals, such as for software you cannot do this or that with it. Considering that they are rarely respected anyway from what I know, then yes I would stand behind the label of "nonsense". Why not make a piece of software and put it out there and forget about these licenses? Wouldn't that be a better approach? Less headaches, less debates.
How come I can do that? With books, even some software/code, videos, and so on. I'd love to see such a world...
From what I know licenses are a "legal" reinforcement of some ideals, such as for software you cannot do this or that with it.
Note that it is the opposite : licenses don't tell you what you can't do, but what you can do. The default situation is that you cannot do anything, and the licence allows you to do things you would not have the right to otherwise. For example, if there are two licenses with no additional information,it means that one can use either of them, rather than both.
Note that it is the opposite : licenses don't tell you what you can't do, but what you can do.
And by telling you what you can do, they tell you what you can't. It is the same. "You can share the code ONLY if you mention the original author". "You can modify and redistribute ONLY if you use the same license." And so on. No sane society can make use of these.
Software licenses are, in my view and under my arguments, useless and primitive. A sign of a traumatized species. And I am not even exaggerating. Think about it, if you make a software, why in the right mind you want to restrict its use? Unless you are traumatized by this society and you want to "own" that software for your own gain or out of fear. Mind you, a reminder: a piece of software is digital so it can be copied endlessly. Put these together....to me this attitude of software licenses are a sad outcome of traumatized humans.
And by telling you what you can do, they tell you what you can't. It is the same.
It is not the same, in the sense that if there is no license, you cannot do anything. You cannot publish a modified version of any text you find in a book or online, that is called plagiarism and is due to existing laws. By licensing your projects, you allow for things that would otherwise be forbidden. The license does not have to have associated conditions, see the WTFPL.
Whether plagiarism should be a thing is a legitimate question. But in this world where plagiarism exists, licensing is a way to guarantee your users that you won't sue them for plagiarism. If you publish your books without any license, the publishers of a modified version need to trust that you won't change your mind and sue them for plagiarism.
In this world, the trading advantage offered by licensing your work is actually smaller than the one of not licensing it. Licensing your work is giving up some of your trading advantage in favor of your user.
It is not the same, in the sense that if there is no license, you cannot do anything.
To put it simply, when a license allows to do something under certain conditions, it does not establish that you cannot do it otherwise, it reminds it.
If we are in someone's home and I remind you that you cannot take anything, I am not the one forbidding you.
To put it simply, when a license allows to do something under certain conditions, it does not establish that you cannot do it otherwise, it reminds it.
Licenses are about restrictions. Take the less restrictive of licenses, MIT:
The MIT License is a permissive free software license originating at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)[6] in the late 1980s.[7] As a permissive license, it puts only very limited restriction on reuse and has, therefore, high license compatibility.[8][9]
It is not the same, in the sense that if there is no license, you cannot do anything.
This is a weird concept. We have no licenses for our TROM materials and it means the opposite of what you just said. It means there are no restrictions.
You cannot publish a modified version of any text you find in a book or online, that is called plagiarism and is due to existing laws.
And again this is a result of how trade traumatized humans into guarding their stuff, even if they are digital and endlessly able to be replicated.
But in this world where plagiarism exists, licensing is a way to guarantee your users that you won't sue them for plagiarism.
Exactly as I was saying, humans apply these licenses and such because of trade reasons primarily.
In this world, the trading advantage offered by licensing your work is actually smaller than the one of not licensing it. Licensing your work is giving up some of your trading advantage in favor of your user.
How can t
... show more
It is not the same, in the sense that if there is no license, you cannot do anything.
This is a weird concept. We have no licenses for our TROM materials and it means the opposite of what you just said. It means there are no restrictions.
You cannot publish a modified version of any text you find in a book or online, that is called plagiarism and is due to existing laws.
And again this is a result of how trade traumatized humans into guarding their stuff, even if they are digital and endlessly able to be replicated.
But in this world where plagiarism exists, licensing is a way to guarantee your users that you won't sue them for plagiarism.
Exactly as I was saying, humans apply these licenses and such because of trade reasons primarily.
In this world, the trading advantage offered by licensing your work is actually smaller than the one of not licensing it. Licensing your work is giving up some of your trading advantage in favor of your user.
How can that be? If I attach no license it means anyone can do whatever they want with my books. It means I do not care about these things. If I license it it means I restrict it.
If I attach no license it means anyone can do whatever they want with my books. It means I do not care about these things. If I license it it means I restrict it.
This is how you would want it to work, but it is not how author's right law works. From Wikipedia :
Both systems provide for a monopoly right granted to the author for a limited term which can be transferred to another person, which was initially the right to copy or otherwise reproduce the work (hence “copyright”) but has since been expanded to take account of technological developments.
.
Exactly as I was saying, humans apply these licenses and such because of trade reasons primarily.
That's an opinion of yours. Author's rights include moral rights, of which I gave examples earlier, which have little to do with trading.
This is how you would want it to work, but it is not how author's right law works.
You want to force me to be an author or follow certain rules. But I am not. I am not an author. I am a human. I created some things and I put them on the web. Digitally. That's all. Whatever one does with them is up to them. As simple as that. That's how a sane society should work.
That's an opinion of yours.
It is not. It is a direct result of trade. Authors need to own their work in order to trade it. Else they would not bother with licenses.
Author's rights include moral rights, of which I gave examples earlier, which have little to do with trading.
These are a tiny minority of reasons of course. Most authors trade their books, if all they cared was the "moral right" whatever that is, then they should not trade them and sue others who use them for educational purposes and such.
I am not forcing you to anything, I am explaining to you the legal status of unlicensed work.
I am a human. I created some things
Isn't that precisely what "author" means?
These are a tiny minority of reasons of course.
But they are part of the reason. My point is not that they are as proeminent as trade-based reasons in today's society. As pointed by @Rokosun , trade is indeed the reason copyright and author's right came into existence, themselves causing the existence of licenses.
My point is that the existence of those reasons could justify the existence of some form of author's right, and hence of licenses, even in a trade-free society. While it is not that incorrect to call them products of trade, they are not nonsensical in the absence of it.
I am not forcing you to anything, I am explaining to you the legal status of unlicensed work.
I understand. If this is true and digital stuff that has no license attach to it is restrictive by default then as @Rokosun explained it is very likely a result of trade. An I was explaining how I do things but then you said I am not right since this "author's law" or whatever. I explained I am not an author and I do not care what people do with my books. Writing books does not make me an "author", makes me a human who writes books. An "author" is usually someone who has that as their job. Mine is not. I also write blog posts, do videos, and a lot more. Am I a video editor, software developer, and what not? You can call me that, but that is misleading since these are normally "jobs".
In any case, I doubt that work that has no license attached to it becomes restrictive by default. But if that's the case then ok, the retardation is not surprising to me.
... show more
I am not forcing you to anything, I am explaining to you the legal status of unlicensed work.
I understand. If this is true and digital stuff that has no license attach to it is restrictive by default then as @Rokosun explained it is very likely a result of trade. An I was explaining how I do things but then you said I am not right since this "author's law" or whatever. I explained I am not an author and I do not care what people do with my books. Writing books does not make me an "author", makes me a human who writes books. An "author" is usually someone who has that as their job. Mine is not. I also write blog posts, do videos, and a lot more. Am I a video editor, software developer, and what not? You can call me that, but that is misleading since these are normally "jobs".
In any case, I doubt that work that has no license attached to it becomes restrictive by default. But if that's the case then ok, the retardation is not surprising to me.
My point is that the existence of those reasons could justify the existence of some form of author's right, and hence of licenses, even in a trade-free society.
Yes but as I said before the approach should perhaps be labels rather than licenses that are a reinforcer of laws. And they do not work anyway.
While it is not that incorrect to call them products of trade, they are not nonsensical in the absence of it.
Give me an example of a license in a trade-free society that makes sense?
An "author" is usually someone who has that as their job.
This is only onf of the definitions of what an author is. I think the first one is the most prevalent, unless you can proof the opposite. It is (very clearly, I think) the one I meant.
It is the first time that I hear that copyright might only apply to works created in a professional context. I can tell you that it does not work that way in Belgium, see the government's website. I have no reason to believe it is different in other countries, but feel free to contradict me with proofs.
Give me an example of a license in a trade-free society that makes sense?
CC-BY. The right to be recognized as the author of
... show more
An "author" is usually someone who has that as their job.
This is only onf of the definitions of what an author is. I think the first one is the most prevalent, unless you can proof the opposite. It is (very clearly, I think) the one I meant.
It is the first time that I hear that copyright might only apply to works created in a professional context. I can tell you that it does not work that way in Belgium, see the government's website. I have no reason to believe it is different in other countries, but feel free to contradict me with proofs.
Give me an example of a license in a trade-free society that makes sense?
CC-BY. The right to be recognized as the author of your work exists independently of trade, see the examples I mentioned above.
Think about scientific publications. Being recognized as the author of a publication makes people likely to come with you for questions. It also encourages them to collaborate with you on related people. There is trade involved, as publications are the key to getting positions, but not only, otherwise people would stop signing single-authored papers once they have a permanent position.
Look, you can create any world of imagination that you desire, but you cannot force that on anyone else. I write many things, books is just a word to describe these text-based things that I put under a different link. Are all people who write online, authors? No. We can stop at that, because this is becoming repetitive and non-fruitful.
The right to be recognized as the author of your work exists independently of trade, see the examples I mentioned above.
Sure, that can be important for some. But in a saner society you do not have to enforce it. What would be my reason not to mention the author of a scientific paper for instance? Unless I copy that paper and try to sell it under my name. Yes there are other minor motives but they fade away quickly if the ones based on trade are taken into account.
What I called an author in this conversation is exculisively the definition 1 on Wiktionary :
The originator or creator of a work, especially of a literary composition.
In this sense, yes, a person writing an online publication is called its author. I am not forcing anything onto anyone, I am only using words to talk about them.
This is also what the law considers as an author, which is how the term "author" appeared in this conversation. Please understand that and stop complaining about me (and the law) not using your favorite definition of the word.
You refuse to understand that a label vs a job are different. I write many things in many places. That's what I do, for fun. If you call me a bluba-duba or autheur or whatever, is your problem. This is different from someone who specifically writes for a magazine or books and it is paid for that, and his/her job description is that of an author. Also someone who studied to become one and has a "diploma".
Anyway what is the point here? Are you saying that if I, the human Tio, write stuff and put them online in various forms and in various places, then if I do not add a license to these things I create (videos, photos, text, etc.) then I legally restrict them from being used because I want it or not, the law says that?
If that's what you say, fine, you may be wrong or right, it does not matter. Anyone can still use my stuff without giving me anything in return. 99% of the internet is like that. Get used to it.
You refuse to understand that a label vs a job are different.
I understand that very well, but I never said anything about a job here. When I said author, I always meant it in the sense of creator.
Are you saying that if I, the human Tio, write stuff and put them online in various forms and in various places, then if I do not add a license to these things I create (videos, photos, text, etc.) then I legally restrict them from being used because I want it or not, the law says that?
Yes. If you sue someone for distributing copies of your work without permission, you will win. If you do the same for a licensed work (and they respected the terms), you will lose.
You think that releasing a work without license makes the user free to copy it, but it is not true : they are free to copy it only under the condition that they trust you for not suing them in the future. Licensing your work frees them from the need to trust you.
I understand that very well, but I never said anything about a job here. When I said author, I always meant it in the sense of creator.
A "creator" means many things...
Yes. If you sue someone for distributing copies of your work without permission, you will win. If you do the same for a licensed work (and they respected the terms), you will lose.
Good luck with winning at that for comments and whatever you post on the web. You talk in theory, in an "ideal" legal world whatever that means. The reality is different.
Look at the web for a few hours and tell me where you see licenses. Most of the time you do not. Is the world full of lawsuits? No. You need to prove you "own" a piece of whatever "work" you did and where you posted and if you made it public and what not. If it was as you said all companies would put their stuff online without any license, and whoever touches it they will be sued into oblivion. The opposite is true, they hide it and spend a lot of energy on that. They register trademarks and so forth.
... show more
I understand that very well, but I never said anything about a job here. When I said author, I always meant it in the sense of creator.
A "creator" means many things...
Yes. If you sue someone for distributing copies of your work without permission, you will win. If you do the same for a licensed work (and they respected the terms), you will lose.
Good luck with winning at that for comments and whatever you post on the web. You talk in theory, in an "ideal" legal world whatever that means. The reality is different.
Look at the web for a few hours and tell me where you see licenses. Most of the time you do not. Is the world full of lawsuits? No. You need to prove you "own" a piece of whatever "work" you did and where you posted and if you made it public and what not. If it was as you said all companies would put their stuff online without any license, and whoever touches it they will be sued into oblivion. The opposite is true, they hide it and spend a lot of energy on that. They register trademarks and so forth.
You think that releasing a work without license makes the user free to copy it
My friend are you the god almighty telling me how my work can be used? Jesus haha. If I say anyone can use it trade-free, then that's how it is.
they are free to copy it only under the condition that they trust you for not suing them in the future
Calm down my god. Or calm down, my god :). Let's stop with this nonsense honestly. You should become a lawyer and deal with the paperwork and all that fun stuff and give me some space. My work is trade-free, you want to accept it or not.
While it is not that incorrect to call them products of trade, they are not nonsensical in the absence of it.
We can't say with 100% certainty how a trade-free society would look like, we might be able to make some kinda speculation by looking at how trade impacts our world today, but that's all. And with that being said, we could say that licenses won't be as prevalent if trade didn't exist because most licences are used today for trade purposes, even copyleft licenses are an indirect result of trade. And I understand your point that there are other use cases of licenses, but almost all of these reasons are caused by a distrust in others, and a big reason for this distrust is that there are lots of charlatans in our trade based society who're waiting to take advantage of our work, one way or another. So maybe if trade didn't exist then people will have more trust with each other, because they're not competing with each other anym
While it is not that incorrect to call them products of trade, they are not nonsensical in the absence of it.
We can't say with 100% certainty how a trade-free society would look like, we might be able to make some kinda speculation by looking at how trade impacts our world today, but that's all. And with that being said, we could say that licenses won't be as prevalent if trade didn't exist because most licences are used today for trade purposes, even copyleft licenses are an indirect result of trade. And I understand your point that there are other use cases of licenses, but almost all of these reasons are caused by a distrust in others, and a big reason for this distrust is that there are lots of charlatans in our trade based society who're waiting to take advantage of our work, one way or another. So maybe if trade didn't exist then people will have more trust with each other, because they're not competing with each other anymore. Like I said before, we can only speculate right now how it'll be, but looking at how trade has a big impact on creating distrust between people, licenses could become obsolete if this distrust goes away.
Maybe you should reply instead of me from now on. These days I have 0 patience and am a bit frustrated with the documentary so I can't handle these discussions that well haha. Pisses me off when I see this waste of time that people engage in, that doesn't work anyway. If anyone "violates" your "license" you better have good lawyers and a lot of money to do something about it....so they are bullshit even for trade purposes, unless as I said you are a big company and can enforce them....
Anyway, thank you so much for keeping calm and reasonable and explaining things so well and so nice. I wish I was more calm but well...sometimes I lose my patience :D
Its good to see when people genuinely engage in such discussions, and there was a lot of good points explained here. But I can understand why Tio can lose patience very easily. For one he's very busy with his work, and he does a lot of stuff, so he's more busy than most people. And the other thing is that I'm sure pretty sure Tio has had this exact conversion before, with different people. This is something I've experienced myself after joining TROM's chatroom, different people coming in and asking the same questions, and so we have to individually explain to these people how it is and everything, so many repeated conversations. This can get boring real quick, now imagine going through that for a whole decade, LMAO 😂 I remember asking Tio to be less ranty and stuff, but after engaging in these discussions myself and experiencing first hand how exhausting it
Its good to see when people genuinely engage in such discussions, and there was a lot of good points explained here. But I can understand why Tio can lose patience very easily. For one he's very busy with his work, and he does a lot of stuff, so he's more busy than most people. And the other thing is that I'm sure pretty sure Tio has had this exact conversion before, with different people. This is something I've experienced myself after joining TROM's chatroom, different people coming in and asking the same questions, and so we have to individually explain to these people how it is and everything, so many repeated conversations. This can get boring real quick, now imagine going through that for a whole decade, LMAO 😂 I remember asking Tio to be less ranty and stuff, but after engaging in these discussions myself and experiencing first hand how exhausting it can be, now I don't say that to him anymore. I try to help by joining these conversations so Tio doesn't have to do everything on his own. But I wish there were more people who properly understands TROM and are able to explain these ideas, currently this is a very much underrated project with just a handful of people behind it.
Yeah it mostly depends on my mood to be honest...these days I was in a very bad mood. A mix of the freacking heat and feeling physically uncomfortable and then my inability to do the work I wanted for TROM II and so on...
I am really nice generally and I do not think I've been the opposite in this discussion, but I do have to admit that I feel like these days I have little patience. It is always good to understand your moods and even broadcast them to others so that they can understand you better.
I spent years and years on fb comments for 2-3 pages, thousands a month probably...having so much patience everyone was telling me they were amazed by that. But this kinda consumed me over the years.
Anyway, trying to be more calm...it is also that this post was a rant more than anything, so I wanted to just write that take it off my chest and move on, but so it happens that in the digital world people can comment haha. This is not a bad thing in general but at times I wish I can disable all comments on some posts. Hm...that can be a great Friendica feature....
Tbh, I am quite pissed by the way you and @Tio repeatedly reduced the whole thing to his ability to remain patient when explaining things. This is a conversation, not a sermon that he is giving me. If he had had the same conversation several times over the last decade, I wouldn't have to explain what copyright regime applies by default, or even what an author is.
@Liwott Just to be clear, I wasn't talking about this discussion in particular, so this wasn't directed at you. I'd say this is actually one of the better conversations we've had, because you were also explaining some good points without loosing patience, and at least for me (who's relatively new to this project) this wasn't a repeated conversation. But when Tio brought up this thing about patience I just wanted to say this, because I don't know how many people know it but discussions like these are very common around TROM. So even though I don't wanna discourage people from having these conversations, its good to have an understanding of the situation. So when Tio is frustrated with TROM II and because of the heat, he can't have a conversation like he normally would.
Also I wouldn't say we reduced the whole thing to his ability to remain patient, we just went off-topic that's all 🤷 @Tio
Tbh, I am quite pissed by the way you and @Tio repeatedly reduced the whole thing to his ability to remain patient when explaining things. This is a conversation, not a sermon that he is giving me. If he had had the same conversation several times over the last decade, I wouldn't have to explain what copyright regime applies by default, or even what an author is.
I think you have to get used with people having honest conversations with you. That's what we try to do and we try to expose our "weaknesses" if there are any. It can be a "weakness" to have the same conversations for many times, it gets you tired. You should appreciate our honesty rather than getting pissed off at that. And understand us better.
That being said, the conversation is not about what is "legal" since that changes from month to month and it is not something I would ever consider as relevant to discuss about. Laws are man-made rules. Inventions. We talk here about the confusion of word
... show more
Tbh, I am quite pissed by the way you and @Tio repeatedly reduced the whole thing to his ability to remain patient when explaining things. This is a conversation, not a sermon that he is giving me. If he had had the same conversation several times over the last decade, I wouldn't have to explain what copyright regime applies by default, or even what an author is.
I think you have to get used with people having honest conversations with you. That's what we try to do and we try to expose our "weaknesses" if there are any. It can be a "weakness" to have the same conversations for many times, it gets you tired. You should appreciate our honesty rather than getting pissed off at that. And understand us better.
That being said, the conversation is not about what is "legal" since that changes from month to month and it is not something I would ever consider as relevant to discuss about. Laws are man-made rules. Inventions. We talk here about the confusion of wording when it comes to the use of "free" and how what we understand by being free is being sucked under the gravity force of trade, making the concept a mere smokescreen that lure people into trading without them understanding that.
The conversation is about these words losing all meaning and the practice of trade being so hidden behind these concepts. Did I ever mentioned laws in the post? I hope I did not.
If anyone "violates" your "license" you better have good lawyers and a lot of money to do something about it....
Yes, in this world, you have to trade just to ensure that your rights are being respected. This does not make the rights in question nonsensical, but on the opposite it strengthen the need to fight for them.
So @Liwott you mentioned that if someone doesn't apply a copyright to their works then it'll automatically become restricted. This is actually true but it wasn't always like it, in the past it used to be so that anything you create will automatically be part of open domain (ie, anyone can use it for whatever purposes) unless you manually go and apply a copyright to your work to restrict it. But later they changed the law to make it so that every work you make, from the moment of creation it becomes automatically copyright restricted. And I believe this change in law is what inspired people to create permissive licenses like creative commons. I recommend you watch this short video they made because it explains all of these - creativecommons.org/about/vide…
So @Liwott you mentioned that if someone doesn't apply a copyright to their works then it'll automatically become restricted. This is actually true but it wasn't always like it, in the past it used to be so that anything you create will automatically be part of open domain (ie, anyone can use it for whatever purposes) unless you manually go and apply a copyright to your work to restrict it. But later they changed the law to make it so that every work you make, from the moment of creation it becomes automatically copyright restricted. And I believe this change in law is what inspired people to create permissive licenses like creative commons. I recommend you watch this short video they made because it explains all of these - creativecommons.org/about/vide…
So now the important thing is, why did they change the law? And why did copyright even become a thing in the first place? This idea that you could somehow own information and have the right to restrict it. This is where trade comes in, because if you look at the bigger picture then all of it happened because of our trade based society. So here's the situation:
Everyone is forced to trade in order to survive, its like they somehow have to earn their right to live. Technically the do have the "right", but in practice they can't live unless their basic needs are met, which require them to trade.
And so considering the above point, the only way creators can make a living is to somehow sell their work. And this is why copyright was first invented, to give a trade value to art and other works.
So now that every piece of Art and other work can also be owned and traded, this gives rise to things like plagiarism where someone can take someone else's work and make money off of that. Trade again give rise to this fear in people's mind, that others would steal their stuff and use it to make money. And mind you, we're not talking about stealing physical things here, people are afraid that someone could steal information that they somehow "owns". And so yeah, this fear is probably the reason why they changed the law to make everything copyright restricted by default.
You mentioned this as to why licenses are necessary:
licensing is a way to guarantee your users that you won't sue them for plagiarism. If you publish your books without any license, the publishers of a modified version need to trust that you won't change your mind and sue them for plagiarism.
Yes this is the point of licensing, and I'm not saying its useless. But ask yourself why you're afraid that the creator would sue you? Because this is a real thing that happens, there are people who make a lot of money from this and they're called "Copyright trolls" - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrigh… So these are people who abuse the copyright law for their own trade benefit, and they're more common than you might think. So this fear you have that the creator would sue you, its not an irrational fear, and its again directly or indirectly created because of trade. So in this trade based society where you can't really trust anyone (because anyone could be a charlatan, a copyright troll in this case), you need a legal statement from someone saying that they allow their work to be modified, because their words simply aren't enough.
Why do people constantly have this fear that others are there to take advantage of their work? Because the unfortunate truth is that this is a norm in our trade based society. So I think this is what Tio meant when he said that copyright laws are a result of traumatized humans.
if someone doesn't apply a copyright to their works then it'll automatically become restricted. This is actually true
Where is that true? And if it is then it is purely retardation. Won't be surprised and won't accept it anyway. People should do stuff and move on. Anything else is a reaction due to this trade based society or their ugly upbringing.
And great job at explaining what I was also trying to explain. You have more patience :D
I know you don't care about any of these BS copyright laws, you don't have any issue with others sharing your works. But whether you like it or not, according to our current legal system you are considered as an author and you reserve all rights to your works, whatever you wanna do with those rights 🤷
I actually don't know what we could do to make our work public domain these days, most people go with creative commons licenses because it can be used to enforce certain things, say if you wanna prevent people from trading your works then you can do that too. Copyright law was initially invented to restrict and trade information, but copyleft licenses like creative commons, GPL, etc are like a hack we can use to do the opposite, to permit sharing and prevent trading.
That video is 20 years old. Do you have anything more recent?
But whether you like it or not, according to our current legal system you are considered as an author and you reserve all rights to your works, whatever you wanna do with those rights 🤷
I am "considered" haha. Ok. Not going to care about what am I considered. I am not an "author", I just write stuff. Are you an author for writing these big posts? Do you own the right to your posts now or how does that go? These things are such a waste of time I swear...
@Tio That video is where I learned this from, and its an official video explaining why they started the creative commons license. But if you want more recent info then I'm sure you can easily find that, I think @Liwott shared a Wikipedia link before that had more info on the legal status of unlicensed work.
And BTW, I do agree that these are a waste of time, its stupid for us to argue about who "owns" certain information, these things are only relevant in a trade based society. In a sane society people would consider these things unnecessary.
I think you may have understood now that a licence is not an enforcer but rather a legal protection against copyright's enforcers. Most of them offer that protection only in limited cases.
Let me ask you : is there a difference in content between your trade-free label and the Unlicense? Formally, the unlicense has the advantage of being explicit. If one is unfamiliar with your website and sees the trade-free logo on another page, they won't get what the label means.
I think you may have understood now that a licence is not an enforcer but rather a legal protection against copyright's enforcers.
Of course it is an enforcer. It says you can only do this and that with the code. Let's try not to go in circles here. Licenses DO say you can ONLY do this or that with the software. In that sense, yes it reinforces rules as to what you are allowed or not to do.
is there a difference in content between your trade-free label and the Unlicense?
Yes. Trade-Free is an idea to promote a concept. An educational movement, not a license. It is to highlight the bad effects of trading a good/service. Unlicense is a "license" with legal bounding en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlicens… - you can even sell an Unlicensed piece of software. That is the opposite of it being trade-free.
Formally, the unlicense has the advantage of being explicit. If one is unfamiliar with your website a
... show more
I think you may have understood now that a licence is not an enforcer but rather a legal protection against copyright's enforcers.
Of course it is an enforcer. It says you can only do this and that with the code. Let's try not to go in circles here. Licenses DO say you can ONLY do this or that with the software. In that sense, yes it reinforces rules as to what you are allowed or not to do.
is there a difference in content between your trade-free label and the Unlicense?
Yes. Trade-Free is an idea to promote a concept. An educational movement, not a license. It is to highlight the bad effects of trading a good/service. Unlicense is a "license" with legal bounding en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlicens… - you can even sell an Unlicensed piece of software. That is the opposite of it being trade-free.
Formally, the unlicense has the advantage of being explicit. If one is unfamiliar with your website and sees the trade-free logo on another page, they won't get what the label means.
That's why we link to trade-free.org/ for more context and we work on making it more clear. It is a new idea. We work on a documentary about this entire thing.
Sorry for insisting in this subthread, but I would want to understand better what the trade-free label entails, as it is not that clear to me from the website.
Licenses DO say you can ONLY do this or that with the software.
No, they say can do this or that with the software. I know I said it already, but I think you missed a subtlety in a previous comment of mine : if there are two licenses, you can choose which one to apply.
Let me go on with a (limited, but I think very clear) pie analogy. You cannot have free applepie with a voucher for illimited pearpie, but if you have both vouchers for illimited applepie and pearpie you can have free applepie. So the pearpie voucher is not restricting you to only pearpie. (edit: got confused with the apples and pears 😅)
you can even sell an Unlicensed piece of software. That is the opposite of it being trade-free.
Do you mean th
... show more
Sorry for insisting in this subthread, but I would want to understand better what the trade-free label entails, as it is not that clear to me from the website.
Licenses DO say you can ONLY do this or that with the software.
No, they say can do this or that with the software. I know I said it already, but I think you missed a subtlety in a previous comment of mine : if there are two licenses, you can choose which one to apply.
Let me go on with a (limited, but I think very clear) pie analogy. You cannot have free applepie with a voucher for illimited pearpie, but if you have both vouchers for illimited applepie and pearpie you can have free applepie. So the pearpie voucher is not restricting you to only pearpie. (edit: got confused with the apples and pears 😅)
you can even sell an Unlicensed piece of software. That is the opposite of it being trade-free.
Do you mean that one cannot sell a piece of software that was obtained trade-free? So the label allows you to do what you want under the condition that it is not used for trade? Makes me think about the anti-capitalist software license.
No, they say can do this or that with the software.
We will endlessly go in circle with this. IF you have a train that goes from siberia to berlin, in a world without borders, then that's great. You go, no restrictions. Now someone comes and invent borders and do not allow border crossing freely. And so others invent VISAs. VISAs allow you to go from one tribe to another, so to travel you now need VISAs now, while before it was free.
Some are saying VISAs are a positive thing, they allow you to travel from one country to another. Hurray! However they are seen like that simply because the "default" state (that of borders and restrictions) is, well, restrictive. VISAs are in fact restrictions. You are only allowed to this or that tribe, if you do this or that. Hope that made it a tiny more clearer.
Licenses are like VISAs, they look as if they give you freedoms, while in fact they restrict the use of the software that should have been free anyway (digital, endless copies, remember!?). Like travel should.
Do you mean that one can
... show more
No, they say can do this or that with the software.
We will endlessly go in circle with this. IF you have a train that goes from siberia to berlin, in a world without borders, then that's great. You go, no restrictions. Now someone comes and invent borders and do not allow border crossing freely. And so others invent VISAs. VISAs allow you to go from one tribe to another, so to travel you now need VISAs now, while before it was free.
Some are saying VISAs are a positive thing, they allow you to travel from one country to another. Hurray! However they are seen like that simply because the "default" state (that of borders and restrictions) is, well, restrictive. VISAs are in fact restrictions. You are only allowed to this or that tribe, if you do this or that. Hope that made it a tiny more clearer.
Licenses are like VISAs, they look as if they give you freedoms, while in fact they restrict the use of the software that should have been free anyway (digital, endless copies, remember!?). Like travel should.
Do you mean that one cannot sell a piece of software that was obtained trade-free?
If you sell a piece of software it is not trade free. That service/product is trade based. If you grab it trade-free and now you are selling it, again that's not trade-free. You are trading the software as simple as that. Don't try to look at trade-free from the lenses of licenses. As I said it is not a license.
You saying that any digital work that is created and no one puts a label on it, it becomes restrictive, is the most nonsensical thing I've ever heard. And if it is true it solidifies that stupidity. In a trade-based society this does not surprise me at all. But I do not care. Our stuff is trade-free anyway so anyone can use them as they wish to. End of the story. :)
Yes, that is the point, if their software was free and you could fork it and deploy it on a bunch of servers, you wouldn't need their servers. But you could still pay to use them. Just like Nextcloud.
From what I understand Mozilla's VPN is preconfigured to use their own paid servers by default, right? And there is no easy way to just deploy a bunch of self-hosted servers because I think the server code is still proprietary.
If you actually wanted to setup your own VPN service this then you'd be using things like openvpn or wireguard, because these are actual trade-free programs you can use. Nextcloud is comparable to wireguard/openvpn, Mozilla VPN is more similar to this one - github.com/meganz/MEGAsync MEGAsync is the open source client for the cloud service provider MEGA, and its made to work on their own paid servers, no other ones. Of
Yes, that is the point, if their software was free and you could fork it and deploy it on a bunch of servers, you wouldn't need their servers. But you could still pay to use them. Just like Nextcloud.
From what I understand Mozilla's VPN is preconfigured to use their own paid servers by default, right? And there is no easy way to just deploy a bunch of self-hosted servers because I think the server code is still proprietary.
If you actually wanted to setup your own VPN service this then you'd be using things like openvpn or wireguard, because these are actual trade-free programs you can use. Nextcloud is comparable to wireguard/openvpn, Mozilla VPN is more similar to this one - github.com/meganz/MEGAsync MEGAsync is the open source client for the cloud service provider MEGA, and its made to work on their own paid servers, no other ones. Of course you could say that anyone can fork the code and make it work with self hosted servers, and if someone actually did that then that fork will be trade-free, while the original software will still be trade based. This is an important distinction to make, just because something can be turned into a trade-free software doesn't mean its trade-free in its current form.
My point was that if Mozilla VPN had been free in the FSF sense (both client-side and server-side), then Mozilla VPN would have been as trade-free as NextCloud. This was in reply to @Tio 's point that Mozilla VPN is free in the FSF sense and yet is not trade-free. Since then, we understood that the server-side software is indeed not free in the FSF sense.
Something can be Free Software and yet Trade-Based. Can be open source and you can have the freedom to fork it, but it itself can collect data, insert ads, hide features. The fact that you can fork and remove those trades is another thing, beyond the original software that is trade-based.
Nextcloud doesn't come stacked with their enterprise edition and all sorts of BS that you have to remove. At least not much at all. But making something Free Software does not guarantee it will be trade-free.
So that we may end this long and dreadful conversation:
Your argument is that if you put no license on your online content, then it automatically becomes restricted, from a law perspective (at least in certain parts of the world). Meaning, in this case society does not care what the owner wants to do with their work, they force them to make them restricted from the get-go.
This could be true, I do not know. Let's take it as true. Ok.
Then your argument is that licenses are necessary in such a situation since they can allow others to use your content. With a license you have some "freedoms" that result from a default and restrictive situation to begin with. But without a license you are only left with the default restrictions.
In that sense, your argument is that licenses are good because they provide some freedoms.
I hope I got it right.
Now looking at things in this way, I can see how you are interpreting the situation
So that we may end this long and dreadful conversation:
Your argument is that if you put no license on your online content, then it automatically becomes restricted, from a law perspective (at least in certain parts of the world). Meaning, in this case society does not care what the owner wants to do with their work, they force them to make them restricted from the get-go.
This could be true, I do not know. Let's take it as true. Ok.
Then your argument is that licenses are necessary in such a situation since they can allow others to use your content. With a license you have some "freedoms" that result from a default and restrictive situation to begin with. But without a license you are only left with the default restrictions.
In that sense, your argument is that licenses are good because they provide some freedoms.
I hope I got it right.
Now looking at things in this way, I can see how you are interpreting the situation as positive in terms of licenses that give you permission to copy, distribute, and so forth.
Now my argument is this:
I totally understand why many good people use licenses so that they can do all of these and protect themselves from future lawsuits too. They are forced. And I argue that this is done because of this trade-based society. If we were not to be traumatized every day by trade, trade, trade, and thus accumulate, own, accumulate more, we would not need any licenses to begin with, especially for digital stuff that can be endlessly replicated. I understand your argument that some may want some sort of “licenses” so that the credits are given to the originator, but I argue that this is not an important driver of how licenses are used overall.
I also say that the work I do is simply there and anyone can use it as they wish. I put no license to it because I fully disagree with how we do things today. I label my work as trade-free, so that no one needs to trade anything with me in order to get what I’ve created. A pure form of free. I understand that from a “legal” standpoint my work is restricted apparently, but not restricted by me (the owner) which is beyond ridiculous; but I give no fucks (to put it mildly). ‘legally” I was not allowed to share my life with Sasha, because of our “visa” issues. Laws are primitive concepts and I refuse to accept them as imposing over my life.
All that being said, licenses are mostly a reaction of a traumatized society, because of trade primarily. And I refuse the concept of any license. Everything we do, we do it in a humane way and ask nothing in return for it.
I do what I do at TROM, the way we do it, and that's the most important thing when it comes to our content. If I made the content, I have a say in what to do with it, not the society. And we say it is trade-free. If people cannot “trust” us from a “legal” perspective simply because we have no “license” attached to this work, then they do not understand TROM anyway and I could not care less.
in this case society does not care what the owner wants to do with their work, they force them to make them restricted from the get-go.
In practice, nobody imposes anyone to exercise that right. It is just that the right is reserved to the author by default. Someone can legally publish a work, leave everyone do what they want with it for ten years, then start suing everyone for plagiarism. So, as I explained in a recent comment, licensing a work is not a way to give yourself more freedom, but one of giving a garantee to people wanting to do stuff with it.
in this case society does not care what the owner wants to do with their work, they force them to make them restricted from the get-go.
In practice, nobody imposes anyone to exercise that right. It is just that the right is reserved to the author by default. Someone can legally publish a work, leave everyone do what they want with it for ten years, then start suing everyone for plagiarism. So, as I explained in a recent comment, licensing a work is not a way to give yourself more freedom, but one of giving a garantee to people wanting to do stuff with it.
Now about your argument
but I argue that this is not an important driver of how licenses are used overall.
This may be true or not, I don't know. My point is not that it is important wrt trade-based motivations, it is that because of this (and consequences I mentioned), licenses can still make sense in a trade-free world.
I put no license to it because I fully disagree with how we do things today. I label my work as trade-free
I am not certain whether the label counts as a licence. If you state publicly and clearly enough that anyone can use your work, then it amounts to giving them a license I think.
When I talk about license-free, understand free of license and label. If you put your work online without any statement on whether people can use it, then you keep your right of accusing them of stealing it. To take your pie analogy (I know copying is not theft, but I think you will understand what the analogy means) : if I see a pie with a "free pie" note and take a bite, nothing happens; if I see a pie with nothing written and take a bite, I can be accused of stealing that bite.
If people cannot “trust” us from a “legal” perspective simply because we have no “license” attached to this work, then they do not understand TROM anyway and I could not care less.
My point above is not about the people not understanding your point, it is about them not believing that their approach is genuine. If you want, it is about people so traumatized by trade that they cannot believe right away that your trade-free approach is genuine. Licensing your work can give them some garantee so that they can embrace the trade-free approach without having to bet on your good faith.
In practice, nobody imposes anyone to exercise that right.
True, but that "right" is added by default to your work. Which I think is not a good practice.
If you put your work online without any statement on whether people can use it, then you keep your right of accusing them of stealing it.
But online there can be no theft. Only copying. That's why I find these approaches "nonsensical". No one can steal your work. The only (or at least main) reason that people are bothered by that is as we explained: trade. They can lose their trading advantage if their work is attributed to others that are making a profit off of it. At times can be an issue of the owner not wanting their work to be attributed to others, I get that, but as I said before that is likely not a huge force behind this entire situation.
if I see a pie with a "free pie" note and take a bite, nothing happens; if I see a pie with nothing written and take a bite, I can be accused of stealing that bite.
The analogy cannot work for
... show more
In practice, nobody imposes anyone to exercise that right.
True, but that "right" is added by default to your work. Which I think is not a good practice.
If you put your work online without any statement on whether people can use it, then you keep your right of accusing them of stealing it.
But online there can be no theft. Only copying. That's why I find these approaches "nonsensical". No one can steal your work. The only (or at least main) reason that people are bothered by that is as we explained: trade. They can lose their trading advantage if their work is attributed to others that are making a profit off of it. At times can be an issue of the owner not wanting their work to be attributed to others, I get that, but as I said before that is likely not a huge force behind this entire situation.
if I see a pie with a "free pie" note and take a bite, nothing happens; if I see a pie with nothing written and take a bite, I can be accused of stealing that bite.
The analogy cannot work for digital stuff. It is more like if you come across a pie recipe and you take a photo of it to make the pie at home. Even if the pie recipe doesn't have a sign saying: you can take a photo and make your own pie. Anyway....digitally all is different. When you publish something on a public website, you...well...publish publicly. Accept search engines to crawl and index your site and all that. It is like putting your apple pie on a public dinner table where you know everyone came to eat, and you expect others to eat your pie too.
If you want, it is about people so traumatized by trade that they cannot believe right away that your trade-free approach is genuine. Licensing your work can give them some garantee so that they can embrace the trade-free approach without having to bet on your good faith.
You can take it that way too, but since we always mention our stuff is trade-free and make it obvious, then whoever knows about TROM knows about that too.
So Mozilla VPN is "free" but you can cancel your subscription withing 30 days and get a refund. REFUND FOR WHAT?!
This world has lost its marbles entirely. The word "free" has no meaning at all anymore. Yeah it is free....psst just for like 10 days or it is so limited you have to purchase the "pro" version....
Fuck them! These charlatans.
That's why our trade-free project that we launched and are making a documentary about, is fucking important. It cuts through this shit like a knife through butter.
Apply W.A.I.T. : What Am I Trading? A simple question. What do they want form me in return for this product/service? If they want my data, attention (ads), currency, something else, then it is trade-based. Never follow the money, follow the trades to see where these charlatans are hiding.
So yeah, wtf is Mozilla doing? If they want my currency then fuck them, this is not "free", it is trade-based. #tromlive
UPDATE: For those who may be confused since they see prices, I and millions of others from other parts of the world than you, we do not see any prices. This is what we see:
you're misreading that first part. it's merely a warning about free VPNs and why you can't necessarily trust that. the landing page makes it very clear that it itself is a paid service.
Ah ok I got that part now, but it is very confusing. Why are they calling them "competitors" if they are free? And which ones are free, I am only aware of RiseupVPN. Do you know any other that are free? Also they do not make it clear at all that this is a paid-for service. They tell you how "amazing" it is and that you can join the waitlist.
what is this based on? the landing page that you link to lists subscription plans for the product
On this page mozilla.org/en-US/products/vpn… and I suppose it is the main page, they do not say this is a paid-for product. They never mention that from what I could see. In any case, they make it entirely confusing by:
This, to me, sounds like they provide a free VPN since they call their competitors "free VPNs".
think it's at the very least implied that it's a service that you pay for given the subscription plans section, which comes before the FAQ section you're referring to. sure, it doesn't say in big bold text "this costs money" but as someone who looked at that page for the first time recently, it seemed clear enough to me.
Again, you have a point in that the section in question would probably benefit from a rewording
oh that'd be a major twist in this debacle 😅 yeah I'm seeing prices for two different subscription options on that page. curious to know what you're (not) seeing. (other option is not show in screenshot due to screen size 😄)
Ah got it, understanding your criticism better. In that case, yeah they should've done a better job with the wording to avoid making references that don't make full sense 😄
I updated to post to mention this. I had no idea others are seeing a different page than I and my friends do. A friend sent me this from a different location than mine, and he saw the same thing as me....interesting...
They are competitors because they target the same userbase, although they are free in the sense of cost-free.
Read their FAQ and answer again. Pay attention. The alien asks: "How does Mozilla VPN compare to the competition?". And Mozilla answers: "While free VPNs seem attractive, they do not make the same commitments to privacy as Mozilla VPN."
Again: "While free VPNs seem attractive" ... when the question is "How does Mozilla VPN compare to the competition?". Mozilla: "While free VPNs seem attractive".
Isn't that implying that Mozilla too is a "free" VPN, but the difference is that "they do not make the same commitments to privacy as Mozilla VPN." ? Why "while"? And why chose them as "competitors" when Mozilla is a paid-for service?
The image you linked also mentions subscription and refund, which don't make much sense for a free service.
That's why this post, and me being confused. See the post again for clarification.
What gave you the impression that it is free?
Someone sent
... show more
They are competitors because they target the same userbase, although they are free in the sense of cost-free.
Read their FAQ and answer again. Pay attention. The alien asks: "How does Mozilla VPN compare to the competition?". And Mozilla answers: "While free VPNs seem attractive, they do not make the same commitments to privacy as Mozilla VPN."
Again: "While free VPNs seem attractive" ... when the question is "How does Mozilla VPN compare to the competition?". Mozilla: "While free VPNs seem attractive".
Isn't that implying that Mozilla too is a "free" VPN, but the difference is that "they do not make the same commitments to privacy as Mozilla VPN." ? Why "while"? And why chose them as "competitors" when Mozilla is a paid-for service?
The image you linked also mentions subscription and refund, which don't make much sense for a free service.
That's why this post, and me being confused. See the post again for clarification.
What gave you the impression that it is free?
Someone sent this to me as Mozilla offering free VPN services. I've heard Mozilla gave free access to a selected few before and others talking about it being free. Couple with their landing confusing page where there were no prices, only "join the waitlist", and those confusing FAQs it was enough to think that.
And Mozilla answers: "While free VPNs seem attractive, they do not make the same commitments to privacy as Mozilla VPN."
Read my comment and answer again :
Note that they say "free VPNs", not "other free VPNs", so they clearly exclude themselves from that group.
To rephrase it a bit, they answer what they assume is the actual thing that one has in mind about the competition : "why would I pay for a VPN if there are free ones?"
Someone sent this to me as Mozilla offering free VPN services. I've heard Mozilla gave free access to a selected few before and others talking about it being free.
Why does Mozilla have to bear responsibility for what you heard from third parties?
Couple with their landing confusing page where there were no prices
Just because the price is not on the frontpage does not make it free
and those confusing FAQs it was enough to think that.
Nothing in their FAQ says anything about it being free. Again, I think you are projecting what you heard elsewhere as coming from Mozilla.
To rephrase it a bit, they answer what they assume is the actual thing that one has in mind about the competition
That is a massive leap of interpretation from your part. You can go with it, but their answer to such a specific question is confusing at best.
Why does Mozilla have to bear responsibility for what you heard from third parties?
Is this a serious question? Don't waste characters, be more direct please, else we dance around and we can't sync with each other,
Just because the price is not on the frontpage does not make it free
Read my post one more time maybe you get it this time. I even wrote free in quotes. Was more of a question how can they answer that FAQ in a manner that implies they are free, while talking about payments and refunds in other FAQs.
Nothing in their FAQ says anything about it being free.
It cannot be more clearer than: A kid asking Mozilla: "How does Mozilla VPN compare to the competition?" And Mozilla answers: "While free
... show more
To rephrase it a bit, they answer what they assume is the actual thing that one has in mind about the competition
That is a massive leap of interpretation from your part. You can go with it, but their answer to such a specific question is confusing at best.
Why does Mozilla have to bear responsibility for what you heard from third parties?
Is this a serious question? Don't waste characters, be more direct please, else we dance around and we can't sync with each other,
Just because the price is not on the frontpage does not make it free
Read my post one more time maybe you get it this time. I even wrote free in quotes. Was more of a question how can they answer that FAQ in a manner that implies they are free, while talking about payments and refunds in other FAQs.
Nothing in their FAQ says anything about it being free.
It cannot be more clearer than: A kid asking Mozilla: "How does Mozilla VPN compare to the competition?" And Mozilla answers: "While free VPNs seem attractive, they do not make the same commitments to privacy as Mozilla VPN."
In what world are you living that the above does not make sense that it is confusing if Mozilla is a paid for service!? Do you want me to translate it for you?
Question: How is your VPN comparing to other VPNs out there that provide the same service? Answer: The other FREE VPNs are not as good as ours since we have better privacy.
If you did not understand that then ok, but to me that was the meaning of that FAQ and the answer.
The other FREE VPNs are not as good as ours since we have better privacy.
For the third time, they do kot criticise other free VPNs, they criticise free VPNs. In other words, all free VPNs. To me that screams that their own VPN does not belong to that category.
Is this a serious question?
It was a rhetorical question. It was a serious comment though. Half of your answers to why yiu charge Mozilla for pretending their VPN is free is that you heard it from other people.
For the third time, they do kot criticise other free VPNs, they criticise free VPNs. In other words, all free VPNs. To me that screams that their own VPN does not belong to that category.
Ok we can leave leave at that. You have your own interpretation I have mine. I stand behind my judgement and not understand yours. Regardless, if that was my interpretation of that FAQ then perhaps you see where my argument about their approach comes from.
And no I did not say I reached these conclusions because someone told me about this, I said that's how it started and then I had to look at their website and conclude that their service was not free. The person who told me about this service said it was trade-free. The opposite of my conclusion after I reviewed the website.
Actually that's probably what you missed from my post entirely: I was arguing that Mozilla is not a free service, but that they pretend to be so because of that confusing FAQ.
I actually think that the one reason you find this FAQ confusing is because you came there with the oreconception that it is a free service.
Well I was told it was free, I heard before it seems to be free, but I was quite sure it was not free. That FAQ sounds the way I described it, for me, regardless of how I read it :).
Anyway, maybe we should not prolong this.
Always a pleasure to disagree with friendly people 🙂
Same.
I am trying to be friendly. I also work on the TROM II documentary and get distracted by this so if I may seem a bit unfriendly is because of that. But I try to be friendly.
And here's another fun fact, since I could not see any pricing plans on their website only the "join the waitlist" and based on those FAQ, I thought Mozilla embraced one of the very popular tactics of offering a "free" service for a limited period of time or functionality, and then they will charge you for the extension of features or time of use.
This is a tactic many such services use. So I thought that might be it. A projection, but a normal one. In any case now I know they are charging for it, as I was suspecting from the get-go. But my post is valid for what I saw on that website.
Calm down friend. They are very charlatans in their words. This was sent to me by someone who said Mozilla is launching a trade-free VPN. I had to look in depth on that page to realize that they ask for a subscription. They do not list their prices only a "waitlist" for their "amazing" VPN. Get it?
Let's be honest if there is a FAQ titled: "How does Mozilla VPN compare to the competition?" And they answer with "While free VPNs seem attractive, they do not make the same commitments to privacy as Mozilla VPN." then you do not see this as confusing at all? What I understood is that their "competitors" are "free VPNs" but they are not as good as Mozilla's VPN. Else why are you seeing them as your only competition if you are not free yourself. Why are them comparing themselves with "free VPNs"? Confusing and I have a feeling is done on purpose.
pff...wow...ok....so that's why the confusion here....but that FAQ about their "competitors" is still highly misleading. So for me, the experience from my location, was entirely misleading.
I understand I would not have made the post like I did if I would have seen the prices and all that, the way people from say USA do. But my point about that FAQ is still valid. It is a misleading FAQ.
A huge and massive thank you again to @Roma for the huge 500 Euros donation to TROM. Amazing help hard to believe. We are working furiously on TROM II and we keep all of our 30+ trade-free projects alive and relevant. Any donation prolongs our work. We do not buy fancy shit, unnecessary things, or anything except food to support us, and pay the bills.
I MAY have finished the second TROM II part...1h 17 minutes. I will have to revisit it tomorrow to see about the ending, I may do a few things, but basically is kinda done...wow. Ok. That's great! Can't wait to move on to the next parts :D - #tromlive
A better way of handling the icons for dark/light themes, an awesome system cleaner integrated into TROMjaro, and a new paywall remover for online articles. Enjoy! #tromlive
We have 150 thousand processes that are unfinished...this is extreme it seems...and we dont know why...the server works good, all fine, but we tried optimizing the database and more. @Hank G ☑️ helps a lot.
Huh, you think this might be related to that weird bug we saw where random user's posts are appearing on our timeline? How long has this been a problem, have there always been lots of unfinished processes like this? @hankg
github.com/friendica/friendica… This is the issue we've been talking about. But I feel like this problem has been going on for a lot longer, and users from other instances have also reported stuff like this. So maybe they're not related..... 🤔 @hankg
Look at this screenshot: Now I don't follow Anubis or Katherine, and I've never followed them actually, then why are their posts showing up on my home timeline?! And as you can see from my ...
Oh look, an article about how humans smuggle rare birds and make tens of millions of euros a year - occrp.org/en/investigations/as…
Guess why they are doing that?
Their genes? No. Their ego? What is that!? Lack of laws? No. Laws not tough enough? No.
They are doing it because we live in a trade-based society and everyone is forced, compelled, then lured into playing it. People need it, people learn to love it. Accumulate shit, trade for survival, all that. This will never stop as long as the core of our society is to TRADE TRADE TRADE, while no one has access to even their basic needs unless they trade.
Fucked up society.
Wanna change it? Provide a basic life for humans. Give them access to their needs as trade-free, so that you can start to decouple them from these bad incentives. Then promote and encourage and support volunteer projects, so that we end up creating stuff, without having to trade it.
This way you create much saner and more relaxed humans.
Else nothing will change. Laws? What a joke! #tromlive
An organized crime group spent years smuggling rare exotic birds from South America and Asia to collectors across Europe. Now, one of their former couriers is speaking out.
Thank you for supporting TROM month after month. Even if it is a lot less than we may need, we try to support the project via other means too. We currently have enough funds to work on TROM for a few more months, thanks to your donations. https://www.tromsite.com/donate/ #tromlive
If you come a day later to work, your "boss" will be really angry and may fire you. If your "boss" pays you a day later, is all fine. #TradeRuinsEverything #tromlive
This one is not a direct consequence of trading itself, the problem here is that contracts do mention the days you have to work, but not the day you will get paid.
I wish you were right. But you are not. There are countless of examples that I personally know, where it states in the contract when you have to be paid, and they were not. So often it is tiring. And it is a consequence of trade since it makes humans prioritize their own selves, so those "bosses" do not care much about their "slaves".
Also, in the contract it is mentioned you need to work only 8h a day, but many times you work more than that.
All of these agreements, written or verbal, will never be respected simply because the trade relationship between the "boss" and the "worker" is imbalanced towards the "boss" who has a lot more power.
And stuff like this is why I'm so thankful for working in a team and having a union. My team covers in case of emergency leave and my union makes sure they paycheck isn't late
That's good. I wonder tho how wide-spread and overall efficient these "unions" are. On top of that, it is quite concerning that we need them in the first place, it says a lot about the abuse of power in a trade society.
Anotehr productive TROM II night. So I wanted for a while to make a sort of compilation of automation - machines that can replace most jobs. And now I finally did it and integrated it into TROM II. I had to cut down some 20h of robots/automation in like 1 minute. Am happy with it. I also kinda know where to insert the leftover bits into the second part. That means I should be done with the second part soon. Can't wait to be done with that :D.
These days I plan to release a new TROMjaro ISO and try to get in sync with the Manjaro updates, so that our ISOs are more up to date. Not planning any huge changes. #tromlive
Yeah watch this documentary....what we are talking about for years now, how trade fucks things up. It is not just about money, money is just a form of trade. Likes, shares, comments, can be traded for products. #TradeRuinsEverything
Kids nowadays are growing up in an even more fucked up society. We are FoCkEd. #tromlive
Fake Famous is a 2021 documentary film directed by Nick Bilton. It is a social experiment involving three non-famous people who attempt to become social media influencers by “faking” fame.
Fake Famous is a 2021 documentary film directed by Nick Bilton. It is a social experiment involving three non-famous people who attempt to become social media influencers by "faking" fame.
Great amount of work today with TROM II. I think I know how to and where to add all of the leftovers for this parts. Already added lots of it. But it will take a week or so to finish this I guess. I have asked for some help on our TROM Discussions chat with some things. Join here matrix.to/#/#chat:matrix.trom.… . #tromlive
I started to work on TROM II again today. Did a bit of work. Happy with it. Still a lot more to do for the second part. Sometimes I'm thinking...is it worth spending 3 hours to do this little video effect for this little part of the documentary!?...but it takes time. Even a simple thing you have to keyframe it, move, mask, add a sound effect and all that...I try not to go too nuts with it tho so let's see if I can finish this second part in a week or so. It is also fucking hot... #tromlive
what? :D
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •I always thought that TVP & TZM were much much bigger and had lots of followers, so I'm surprised to know that they've been in decline. I agree this is kinda sad....
I think it was on the TROM website where I read this quote, or maybe on the book, but it said something like "Projects and people die, ideas survive"
So maybe there are still many people who were inspired by these ideas, all is not lost. TROM II and Sasha's book could have an impact, so let's see.....
Tio
in reply to Rokosun • •They were a lot bigger, but now idk...from what I can tell they faded away kinda. They themselves are not active it seems, at all. So even if they have some "followers" those will get bored eventually.
"Projects and people die, ideas survive" - yes I used to say this after I left TVP, as a way to emphasize on the ideas behind such projects not the projects themselves or the people behind them.
But yeah....let's see....after TROM II and the book will be released. They won't be the end of anything, but the beginning of new things to come from us. ;)
Rokosun likes this.
Rokosun reshared this.
Rokosun
in reply to Tio • • •Tio likes this.
Cesar Flores Huallpa
in reply to Tio • •