191–200 of 242 posts
Codeberg going down the path of Blueskyification
At the start bluesky was actually pretty nice, but now it's just this weird bubble where disagreements don't exist and when I checked out like a month ago there was just so much damn p***.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you know GitHub removes things they deem to be malware? Malware is a very subjective classification, so who watches the watchmen? How do we know they won't start removing things that are deemed harmful just for competing with Microsoft products? Hell, letting them have a mechanism to moderate the site's content at all is a huge risk to society's freedom and continued existence. Aliens could arrive any time and sh…
Removing malware or illegal content is very different than removing things for political reasons.
Fully agree. I am against AI slop, LLM overhyping, and cryto scams, as much as anybody, however: > the main property I need from infrastructure [is for] it to be predictable, dependable, and reasonably neutral towards the legal Open Source software hosted on it. I do not like to build on a foundation that could be ripped away from under my feet at any moment for arbitrary reasons.
> I do not like to build on a foundation that could be ripped away from under my feet at any moment for arbitrary reasons. Do you only build and publish software in a vacuum running on hardware you own? There is no online community in the western hemisphere that isn't subject to any kind of arbitrariness, be it internal (community, like here) or external (legal or infrastructurally, like on github).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've been thinking along these lines more and more. Trying to specify exact limits and trying to account for every possible situation when making rules just encourages people to find holes and workarounds. It creates a game, a competition between the rule makers and everyone else. When instead you state higher level values and ask for cooperation, it encourages us to work together. It's the Honor System instead of a…
> there's no referee, most everyone does their best to just play hard and follow the rules Only in small groups. Any sufficiently large groups will have a number of people (possibly sociopaths) that will break the rules for personal gain. And in a lot of cases it's enough if very few people do that.
This is the problem with choosing platform for moral — instead of practical — reasons. Platforms that are known for making moral judgments will likely keep making moral judgments in the future. Eventually, they'll make a judgment that you heavily disagree with. This is why communities founded on ideology tend to shatter, while those founded on a shared goal tend to survive. Linus doesn't care whether you're a GPU exp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you considered actually asking someone at Codeberg about your cryptography project?
Who would one ask to get an official and enforceable answer? I don’t want an opinion, I need a definitive ruling I can trust.
> I need a definitive ruling I can trust
Why? What's so special about the place where you host your source? It's the second time I see this sentiment in the thread, and I don't get it. If an official channel tells you a project is OK, and then someone else decides it's not, what does it really happen outside of you taking your project elsewhere?
Everyone who says stuff like this is just burying their head in the sand. That is like saying that there are serious questions about the ethics of buying sweatshop-made clothes, or driving a gas-powered car, or robbing grocery stores --- but those are becoming part of life, and so we need to "figure out how to engage with them".
That doesn't mean you have to upend your life to fight the good fight. You can say "I want a world without X, but right now I need X to live, so I do X, while maintaining an awareness of it and looking for opportunities to do less X". You can say "I want a world with some kinds of X but not others, so I do the X that I'm okay with". You can even say "I think X is ethically fine so I'll do it". But it just doesn't make sense to say "there are ethical issues with X, but those only affect how we engage with it, and have no bearing on whether we think people should need to engage with it at all".
There can't be ethical consideration of "how" without at least considering the ethics of "whether".
I have no particular problem with this decision/policy on the part of Codeberg. I do have an issue with their "tainted code" project that labels various FLOSS projects as "AI tainted". ardour.org has the follow AI policy statement: --------- Using LLMs to generate code for Ardour A word about licensing, copyright and LLMs ("AI"). We require all code contributed to Ardour to be licensed under the GPL (you may retain c…
They didn't consult a lawyer when they wrote that. The idea that public domain code that is not copyrightable is incompatible with the GPL is simply not true. sqlite is in the public domain and not copyrightable, for example. Their decision leans too heavily on what that court decision said. It was actually fairly nuanced. The court explicitly declined to address whether Thaler could be considered the author because…
I think we will be seeing a lot more of this. There were plenty of examples of developers failing to understand copyright law and the implications of licenses before LLMs and that was with well established law. With some genuine uncertainty around LLMs, more variation between jurisdictions and some criteria that are less clear its going to get a lot worse.
[flagged]
Typical hn comment: xenophobia, hyperbole, wishful thinking, missing the point, cynicism and cheap sarcasm. You managed to hit all of them. Congrats.