I can't help but to wonder how far you could reasonably go to avoid DMCA notices and such for projects like this, whilst still collaborating on it - basically to ensure that you're censorship resistant for any source code.
The youtube-dl fiasco from a while ago comes to mind in particular, in regards to DRM on books, i think that this comment on Reddit summarizes why it might be important:
> You know exactly why they don't treat it like a physical book. Because then they can rewrite the rules, you don't own it and they make more money.
(e.g. practices that feel like they should be illegal, but aren't, due to the state of education/healthcare industries in the US)
Some ideas for this thought experiment:
GitHub - clearly not the best option, since they're obligated to follow the regional DMCA laws.
GitLab/Gitea/Gogs/... - a self hosted service is probably better, even if takes more effort to run, but at that point the host itself would receive abuse complaints
DMCA Ignored Hosting - apparently a thing, but who knows how resistant they are once the larger corporations would start throwing their weight around
Tor/Onion Sites - probably not a good option, because currently the technologies are used by a number of shady individuals, and even without that factor, the user experience tends to generally be pretty poor (hard to onboard people, probably way slower)
In short, i'm not sure what actually can be done. I guess you just have to vote for people who view the state of the industry as a problem and see as nothing happens because the majority of the populace doesn't care (hopefully it would change, but don't rely on this alone).
Actually, my father recently read some standards online for the industry he is employed in - not only did he have to pay for viewing them, but he could also not save anything because of the DRM in place in the browser (the closest you can get is screenshots, but on text heavy documents that is pretty useless unless you use your own OCR, which many don't know how to do).
Now, maybe that's just a European perspective, but that felt pretty unfair. Especially considering the fact that these standards had information in them which could save lives. Why should you put things like that behind a paywall!?
The youtube-dl fiasco from a while ago comes to mind in particular, in regards to DRM on books, i think that this comment on Reddit summarizes why it might be important:
> You know exactly why they don't treat it like a physical book. Because then they can rewrite the rules, you don't own it and they make more money.
(e.g. practices that feel like they should be illegal, but aren't, due to the state of education/healthcare industries in the US)
Some ideas for this thought experiment:
In short, i'm not sure what actually can be done. I guess you just have to vote for people who view the state of the industry as a problem and see as nothing happens because the majority of the populace doesn't care (hopefully it would change, but don't rely on this alone).Actually, my father recently read some standards online for the industry he is employed in - not only did he have to pay for viewing them, but he could also not save anything because of the DRM in place in the browser (the closest you can get is screenshots, but on text heavy documents that is pretty useless unless you use your own OCR, which many don't know how to do).
Now, maybe that's just a European perspective, but that felt pretty unfair. Especially considering the fact that these standards had information in them which could save lives. Why should you put things like that behind a paywall!?