Post by @zzt@mas.to

the proof assistant for my language workbench finally works as expected when JIT native compiled! I took a short break from it, but the solution turned out to be fairly simple: the symbol table for the language needed to be defined and updated at both compile and runtime, which is a fairly ordinary macro issue made slightly more confusing when it happened in the middle of the reader

next up:
- one more language! Standard ML is probably a project of its own, but datalog might be relatively perfect to demonstrate certain concepts.
- lots of little bug fixes
- I need to make sure packaging the language workbench will work as expected
- likewise, I need to make sure non-emacs-lisp source files can be packaged and compiled as part of the standard emacs package system
- not last and not least: long form documentation! there’s no way to figure this thing out right now without being a mind reader

0 Boosts

0 Likes

This federated comment is not yet available here.

[object Object]

@zzt@mas.to 2 days ago

a movement lives and dies on labor and advocacy

we can just take the GPL away from these assholes, actually

I see no reason why an obviously and severely contradictory GPL, one that protects no freedoms at all, should be considered by any of us to be “the GPL”

my emacs code is going to be under the GPLv3 because it must. that’s the system these assholes set up.

my understanding of the GPLv3 is not the broken, contradictory one presented by GNU and the FSF, because I am not a morally broken person.

according to the GPL, I am not allowed to modify the license to meet my needs (great system you set up there). but I am allowed to clarify that I do not believe in a contradictory and broken version of the GPL. I am allowed to state my understanding, and hold the users of and contributors to my code, to that understanding. that’s a bit more solid than a license pretending at neutrality, isn’t it?

[object Object]

@zzt@mas.to 2 days ago

at this point, I see no reason to continue to pretend that any pro-slavery, pro-LLM, pro-war, pro-bigotry variant of the GPL is recognizably the GPL

GNU and the FSF can feel free to make their own license under a different name, to make it clear that theirs is a proprietary software license that does not protect the freedoms of users or contributors, and which is incompatible with the GPL

my code will be licensed under version 3 of the GPL, not that I have any choice

my code will be incompatible with any corrupted variants of the GPL, including the one being perpetuated by GNU and the FSF. I said what I said.

if these fuckers want a schism, we can give them a fucking schism

[object Object]

@zzt@mas.to 2 days ago

I’m not interested in roleplaying with you that there are threats to FOSS and that those theoretical threats make what I’m proposing impossible

there are real threats to FOSS, right now. they’re in the house with us. the men who told us they’d protect us from threats to FOSS all failed to defend FOSS from anything other than the thought experiments they came up with to manipulate us.

those men took those thought experiments so seriously that now emacs, my editor, has an official maintainer who is proudly pro-slavery. that’s how hard those men ignored real threats to play in a fantasy land where good slavers exist and they must have software freedom.

those men and their organizations have all failed.

~3 more replies

[object Object]

@zzt@mas.to 2 days ago

> Once you have collected the details, you should send a precise report to the copyright holders of the packages that are being wrongly distributed. The GNU licenses are copyright licenses; they can be enforced by the copyright holders of the software. In addition, we encourage the use of any legal mechanism available to users for obtaining complete and corresponding source code, as is their right, and enforcing full compliance with the GNU GPL. After all, we developed the GNU GPL to make software free for all its users.

wow! it certainly looks like I can enforce my interpretation of the GPL and GNU can’t stop me actually

it certainly looks like I can choose to resolve the contradiction in that last sentence: that software isn’t free if it’s being used to take your life, or to discriminate against you, or to feed a system of plagiarism

[object Object]

@zzt@mas.to 2 days ago

you uhh aren’t free to use or contribute to the software if you’re dead and the software was used to kill you, or if your contribution constitutes slave labor, or if you’ve been denied the community and shared resources of the project by bigots, or if an LLM steals the entire thing and uses it to produce proprietary code with no attribution

any version of the GPL that doesn’t incorporate these very obvious elements of freedom (software freedom if you must), is an invalid version of the GPL

it is what it is. I don’t mind if my code is incompatible with invalid versions of the GPL.

Stephen Dioxide :TwinPines:

@Steve@social.coop 11 hr. ago

@zzt So... people don't like FLOSS that incorporates slop code. And people don't like FLOSS that considers slavery to be acceptable.

I think that @DemocraticTechFund has come along at just the right time.