Ok, in that case your definition is inclusive of things which are not conventionally considered plagiarism. Ghostwriting is commonly looked down upon, but not considered plagiarism. A large part of a non-legalistic definition of plagiarism includes a lack of consent from the original creator; if you take a job as a ghostwriter, you agree to your writing being published under a different name. If I work as a developer for someone who wants to make their own app, say a YouTuber, and they publish the app I wrote as <YouTuber’s> app, most people would consider that perfectly normal and not plagiaristic, since the developer was paid for a service in which it was understood their work would be published under a different person’s name.

You are also avoiding the original question about BSD and MIT, and not explaining why that is plagiaristic. Do you still think they are plagiaristic? If so, how? Given that both the licensor explicitly wanted people to be able to re-use their code in proprietary software (i.e. consent/permission exists), and these licences require attribution (i.e. not only are you not taking credit for it, you are actively naming and crediting the original author).

I don’t have a legalistic view of the world; I am saying plagiarism is a legalistic concept. For context, I support the abolition of law and of intellectual property. Plagiarism is a particular kind of violation of intellectual property law, and without IP, it makes no sense. You still fail to define a plagiarism outside of the law, and you also fail to define a plagiarism that does not violate MIT/BSD. MIT/BSD both require attribution. You cannot claim MIT/BSD code written by someone else as your own without breaking copyright law.

No, actually, plagiarism is a legalistic term. If IP law did not exist, neither would plagiarism.

And if you give someone permission to use your IP, and they go ahead and use that permission, it is not plagiarism neither legally nor by any colloquial understanding of the term. That is what happens when someone uses BSD or MIT code in their proprietary software. It is explicitly allowed, by design, by intention.

without attribution

BSD/MIT also don’t allow you to not attribute the author of the BSD/MIT code, so that doesn’t even make sense. You are perhaps thinking of code released public domain, in which case, again, the author specifically chose that over BSD/MIT, and the main practical difference is not needing to give attribution, so that must be what the original author wanted.

That is definitionally not plagiarising. It follows IP law, which is the opposite of plagiarism.

MIT/BSD also makes the most sense for small/minimal projects where GPL is likely overkill. A 100 line script does not need to be GPL’ed. A small static website does not need to be GPL’ed.

It’s not “stealing”. It’s explicitly allowed. Using IP according to its licence is the opposite of stealing.

I don’t know about the US specifically, but oftentimes, and definitely where I’m from, laws can have a small amount of “common sense” leeway and judges can find justifications for rulings if they want to rule a particular way. e.g. I have pirated games that I legally bought because there’s literally no functioning “official” download link anymore, if anyone were to ever prosecute me for that, even if it were illegal technically a judge could find a way to rule it lawful out of sympathy or whatever other reason, if they wanted to. A lot of the time it’s “the government can’t have possibly intended this law to be enforced this way, therefore I rule XYZ”.

In any case, as you said, I’ve never heard of anyone being pursued for that. And if it’s not enforced, it’s not a law.

Reddit ass post

I represent myself in all my cases :)

Great news for defendants though. I hope at my next trial I look over at the prosecutor’s screen and they’re reading off ChatGPT lmao

I’m not talking about “AES”, I’m talking about communism. By the definition of “communism = AES” then communism doesn’t abolish class, private property, the value-form, nations, etc.

Anarchism distinguishes itself from communism principally by an inherent opposition to hierarchy, and an opposition to many of the organisational forms that communists may advocate for or participate in, eg communist parties, councils, and any kind of structure that could constitute a hierarchy. And anarchists are inherently opposed to centralisation, and so on.

That’s just a communist thing, not an anarchist-specific thing…

Ohh that makes more sense. Yeah perhaps, although come to think of it I still need to install vim from the package manager even if vi works fresh out of the box so maybe not?

You can set qBittorrent to only use a certain interface, and set that to the wireguard interface of your VPN.

Huh, vi for me has always been actual vi, not vim. Didn’t know some systems symlink vi to vim.

Only if you use privacy as the opposite of public. “Privacy”, though, generally refers to counter/non-surveillance. It’s not surveillance to be able to access data that you explicitly publish publicly.

I didn’t start using Gentoo when I was 10. Is it over for me?

I like my memes to come with a bibliography.

It’s quite common for nazis to do both. “The death count is inflated, but they deserved it anyway/I wish it were more” and such.

“Why are you so mad” I’m having a casual conversation on a social media platform lol.