<J2270>
i was wondering about that strange thread .. somehow was familiar
<J2270>
and line 598 changes the License for added code
<teepee>
line 598 and 599 make no sense whatsoever
dalias has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
<J2270>
599 doesn't but 598 would enforce that SA so you can't put a different license on it
dalias has joined #openscad
<J2270>
i mean CC0 would allow to release the same code as BY NC SA or worse .. which could be interesting in a court .. maybe all CC0 code could be protected with a NFT
<dalias>
...
<teepee>
it says "release as cc-sa to public domain" that's just not a useful statement
<teepee>
to my understanding it's fine to just relicense anything CC0 to whatever you want, so apart from the strange statement it would be fine to declare everything cc-sa and that's fine from license standpoint
<teepee>
NFT do not protect anything
<J2270>
if you have code A relicensed and now someone is using it and is sued he need to show that this was originaly CC0 code and he used that not the relicensed one. A NFT could proof that the code was first published as CC0 .. also wondering what happens if you just take copyright protected stuff and release it (illegally) as CC0 ..
<teepee>
NFT prove nothing because they don't establish authenticity which is exactly the huge point with people "minting" art they don't own and make money with that
<teepee>
some idiots even try to sell openscad (and other projects) source code "converted by AI" into "pixel art"
<teepee>
so while there might be actual use cases for that stuff, the normal way currently is pretty much summarized in a single word: SCAM
<juri_>
I heard you liked capitalism, so i put some capitalism in your capitalism.
<teepee>
hmm, maybe in part. certainly the "use other peoples work" plays into that