Conversation

Notices

1. のえる (noellabo@fedibird.com)'s status on Sunday, 29-Dec-2024 22:42:08 JST のえる

   in reply to

   • 翠星石
   • Kopimi

   @Kopimi @Suiseiseki Yes, it is true that declarations such as the CC0 example are not licenses.

   The concern here is what is an appropriate declaration to provide clarity about rights for custom emojis.

   Here, we have chosen the schema.org vocabulary "license" as a property to encompass other genuine licenses and public declarations.

   If "license" is not appropriate, we would like to see a better vocabulary alternative.

   • Kopimi (kopimi@kuroyuki-server.misskey.one)'s status on Sunday, 29-Dec-2024 22:42:18 JST Kopimi

     in reply to

     • 翠星石

     @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
     
     Nice to meet you. While performing regular searches on copyright-related terms, I noticed a conversation with Noeru (@noellabo@fedibird.com), whom I also follow, so I followed you.
     
     First, let me offer my Christmas greeting. Christ is Born! Glorify Him!
     
     Regarding your point, I am also aware of it.
     
     Kopimi is not a license, but rather a "declaration." Therefore, Kopimi works should ideally be accompanied by a license such as CC0, Unlicense, or WTFPL.
     
     Additionally, I believe that the ultimate means to achieve the four essential freedoms is through the destruction of copyright as the restrictive mechanism that it is.

   • 翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Sunday, 29-Dec-2024 22:42:19 JST 翠星石

     • Kopimi
     @Kopimi >You are welcome to compile kopimi and play with it as much as you like!
     Unfortunately, such informal license doesn't grant the four essential freedoms; https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms
     
     The "Kopimi" mark alone unfortunately just gives an indication you probably won't be sued if you merely distribute a copy of such work, but such actions would still infringe copyright, as the mark isn't a license.