I feel like there are many devs out there who expose a lot of personal details and opinions all over the web. Maybe it’s just me, but when starting out with the internet I tried my best to separate my personal details (name, age, sex, country, ethnicity, family ties, relationship status,…) from usernames in public.

Seeing devs do it willingly and voice opinions on divisive or sensitive topics kind of messes with me. Aren’t y’all afraid of missing out on job opportunities if someone reads your opinions, code, or other stuff tied to your personal accounts? Or letting anybody (maybe family, friends, acquaintances, …) in on your personal life, mindset, opinions and other personal information?

Anti Commercial-AI license

  • lemmyvoreEnglish
    51·
    1 month ago

    Why are you adding it? It’s not valid. You don’t own the content you post online anymore. They’re copies of your original content, to which you’ve already granted whatever license the website uses. You can’t re-license those particular copies, it’s out of your hands.

    • Kissaki@programming.devEnglish
      1·
      1 month ago

      The poster licensing to the platform is not the same as licensing to the public.

      This instance programming.dev ToS declares:

      2.2. By submitting, posting, or displaying user content on our services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, distribute, and display such user content.

      Distribution and displaying with attribution follows CC BY and SA. NC currently probably does - but may or may not (currently accepts donations).

      The ToS only defines the license to distribute and display. It does not define how users and consumers of that distribution may or may not use the content.

      So from this instance alone, there could be an argument of “the comment defines how it may be used”.

      But I’m not sure that holds given that federated distribution goes to other instances with different terms. For those that don’t define how content may be consumed, it may be a reasonable argument. For those that define it in a conflicting manner, the ToS may override the content CC claim. Given the federated, distributed nature, given that you can reasonably expect such a conflict, there’s a question of whether it holds in the first place if you can expect conflict invalidating it.

      Either way, it’s a convoluted mess, and incredibly noisy. Lemmy content has a language attribute. If there’s a need for a license, it should be a metadata attribute in the same manner.

      • lemmyvoreEnglish
        1·
        1 month ago

        The ToS only defines the license to distribute and display. It does not define how users and consumers of that distribution may or may not use the content. So from this instance alone, there could be an argument of “the comment defines how it may be used”.

        No, there can’t. If the ToS doesn’t give you any permissions it means you have none.

        When you post something you give the site a copy of content, under the license in the ToS. From that moment onward you lose all rights to that copy and cannot re-license or do anything with it anymore, period. It’s not your piece of content anymore, it’s the site’s.

        Your original piece of content is still yours and you hold copyright. That’s the piece that you were holding on your device, in your RAM or on your disk, before you posted it. If you held onto a copy of it you have full rights to it. If you lost it after you posted it, too bad.

        The site cannot re-license their copy under different terms because it doesn’t hold copyright, it only holds a license (albeit under very wide terms).

        Other users are not included in the license. They can’t do anything with the content except what’s allowed under personal use.