Oddbean

People really like to misunderstand the “ethos” of open source as some hippy utopia ideal. You clearly ripped off the block clock, which may not have been your intention but is clear nonetheless. Having legal action against you is purely the business protecting itself and if the situations/timelines were reversed, you’d be doing the same, or you’re dumb (clearly not given the proof of work). Sounds like you started a competition and then got butt hurt when your competition fought back. I use to love nostr and now it feels like I just come online to a bunch of whiney bitches complaining. @nvk your clock is too expensive.

FOSS is originally absolutely a hippie utopia ideal, did you ever read about early history of open source at MIT, GNU, Richard Stallman it's very much been commoditized by corpos as free labor nowadays

I get asked about why I license noscrypt under lgpl often so I added my reason to the startup documentation. Corps can easily use mostly gpl licensed things, especially lgpl and they do often. It's nearly impossible to write any Linux application without linking to gnu libc, or other lgpl equivalent. It can be done, and is done without much friction. IMO, I just requires you to respect the developer and their users. I see the lgpl specifically in noscrypt as protecting my user's rights when using my software. https://www.vaughnnugent.com/resources/software/articles/62ca932f68b8e0b1b99dca6e1c9ffe5538205efb#lgpl-license

Licenses are so subjective to a project and the developers opinions that I mostly stopped caring. I have my reasons and people have ther own. Everyone weighs pros/cons differently, nuance and world view. I think both of those licenses are great. I use plenty of CC license projects and the developers are great people (mjanson and rpmalloc for example.) >someone else using it would be an honor I completely agree!

i just flat out do not want someone patenting my literal work the rest idgaf, if i made something useful that someone can make more hay from good, it's between them and God whether they give me some credit for my work

Yeah totally! In my case I like the added step, of what I believe is protecting my users. People using tools that involve my software should always have access to the source code and ability to modify it if they see fit, or get it directly from me if they want to. If it's software I or my community developed, people should have access to it. I do understand the economics of that being difficult in some cases though, but I think it's worth it.

i've always done that too, put my stuff out as MIT licensed or CC0, glad if it's useful to someone, i don't particularly want to add any burdens i hate intellectual property restriction shenigans to such a degree, i didn't even want to use them for good but i absolutely understand why people use (L)GPL licenses

NVK clearly indicates the trademark he is protecting is for "blockclock" by boosting the following post. nostr:nevent1qqswwmne35jhxy8nz930xyeks00nua4lesd6lxcecw50ueewkw0pz9gpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43z7q3qrvqzg0lsgsnnmrjxelt44vml99gul28mverm80ht4wad5cjmdesqxpqqqqqqzp6fk3v NVK implies he is using his trademark claim to protect his sales of his luxury-priced BLOCKCLOCK. This does not appear to be a valid a trademark or copyright claim. nostr:nevent1qqswl8cft39yyg49wn9yvkj953x2cz568r4vu8mhfjuru4pyyevs0wgpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7q3qaz9xj85cmxv8e9j9y80lvqp97crsqdu2fpu3srwthd99qfu9qsgsxpqqqqqqzftp2fp nostr:nevent1qqs079xdzd9ga5r8ntc6fr845dv7qyqygnrwzz4xx44my5vyy2ehtdcpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsyg8g3f53axxenp7fv3fpmlmqqf0kquqr0zjg0yvqmjamffgz0pgyzypsgqqqqqqskazk3s This can be publically resolved with the simple gesture of publishing the actual takedown request sent to github. If NVK holds a trademark for BTCclock, then he has a positive legal right established in law by means of the monopoly of the use of force and people with guns and cages. If NVK only holds a trademark for BLOCKCLOCK, and he does not publish the takedown request, then we can assume he is standing behind the 5th amendment.