Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gitlab Duo

about.gitlab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 160 posts

Re: Gitlab Duo

#151

Post by thiht »

remram wrote: post #145
thiht wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Attribution doesn’t apply on training. We’d all be screwed otherwise, it would mean you’d have to attribute everything you learned while reading open source codes to every codebase you read every time you write code.

Either attribute or don't use it, that's what the license says. "Doesn't apply" is just opinion right now until settled in court, hopefully the other way. I'm curious to hear why you think so though? Any other license terms you routinely ignore?

> I'm curious to hear why you think so though?

As I said: it would mean you’d have to attribute everything you learned while reading open source codes to every codebase you read every time you write code.

Re: Gitlab Duo

#152

Post by ccgreg »

dustyharddrive wrote: post #134
remram wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand, software heritage doesn't make derivatives or remove the attached license.

They can't be bothered to allow opt-outs ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39771318 ) or even attempt to check if code they're archiving is freely licensed ( https://www.softwareheritage.org/faq/#25_Is_the_code_checked... ) It's like Common Crawl, another non-commerical mass scraping project just benevolently stealing creations for "AI" companies.

We like calling Common Crawl a crawl, not a scraper. Our 17 year old dataset predates the current AI explosion.

Re: Gitlab Duo

#153

Post by [deleted] »

thiht wrote: post #151
remram wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either attribute or don't use it, that's what the license says. "Doesn't apply" is just opinion right now until settled in court, hopefully the other way. I'm curious to hear why you think so though? Any other license terms you routinely ignore?

> I'm curious to hear why you think so though? As I said: it would mean you’d have to attribute everything you learned while reading open source codes to every codebase you read every time you write code.

[deleted]

Re: Gitlab Duo

#154

Post by remram »

rigid wrote: post #149
remram wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a single author, if you have a server with SSH, you don't need Gitolite at all. The lack of anonymous public access is often a deal-breaker though.

For a single author you don't necessarily need any server at all. A cloud directory or zip files work well. But gitolite is so easy to setup & maintain, it's not a big difference and for r/w-access management within teams, it's priceless. I guess one could even hack anonymous access with "PermitEmptyPasswords yes" and "AuthenticationMethods none"

No Gitolite requires keys.

Re: Gitlab Duo

#155

Post by dustyharddrive »

remram wrote: post #150
dustyharddrive wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't be bothered to allow opt-outs ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39771318 ) or even attempt to check if code they're archiving is freely licensed ( https://www.softwareheritage.org/faq/#25_Is_the_code_checked... ) It's like Common Crawl, another non-commerical mass scraping project just benevolently stealing creations for "AI" companies.

Their content policy says you can: > To request the removal of a content from the Software Heritage archive, you must file a formal request containing all of the following informations: > (...) > Please send your request by e-mail to takedown@softwareheritage.org https://www.softwareheritage.org/legal/content-policy/ The HN thread you posted even shows that they contacted the forge's admin week in advance to check fo…

Those are instructions to send a copyright infringement notice with tons of PII. We should have higher standards for "opt-out" than that, even for non-consensual data vacuums.

Re: Gitlab Duo

#156

Post by rigid »

remram wrote: post #154
rigid wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a single author you don't necessarily need any server at all. A cloud directory or zip files work well. But gitolite is so easy to setup & maintain, it's not a big difference and for r/w-access management within teams, it's priceless. I guess one could even hack anonymous access with "PermitEmptyPasswords yes" and "AuthenticationMethods none"

No Gitolite requires keys.

Hence "hack". It needs keys for administration but at a first glance, I see no reason why a git-anon user couldn't be part of gitolite's git user.

Re: Gitlab Duo

#157

Post by calvinmorrison »

remram wrote: post #80
calvinmorrison wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that's what github and software heritage do too. apparently just publishing your software code means it's open game even if it's all rights reserved.

I don't understand, software heritage doesn't make derivatives or remove the attached license.

it's just piracy bro. My git repo is a portfolio. If U2 puts a music video on their website, it doesnt mean they grant you unending access to download it, back it up, redistribute it, etc. Of course not. If you take my art portfolio on your site and download and reproduce it on the wall, that's

Re: Gitlab Duo

#158

Post by remram »

rigid wrote: post #156
remram wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No Gitolite requires keys.

Hence "hack". It needs keys for administration but at a first glance, I see no reason why a git-anon user couldn't be part of gitolite's git user.

You might need to use another user if you want to set its shell to `gitolite-shell username` (no command= for password authentication) but then you'd need to chain sudo or something to have Gitolite run under its own user again... Seems very tricky.

Or maybe you can write a shell that runs a gitolite-shell command is its arguments are not already gitolite-shell?

Re: Gitlab Duo

#159

Post by xigoi »

thiht wrote: post #140
xigoi wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My code has a license that disallows using it to create proprietary software, but it seems that proprietary LLMs are still being trained on it.

Training on your code and using your code are very different things. As a human, if your code is open, I can read it, learn how it works and reuse my knowledge to create proprietary source code without infringing on your license.

I am talking about the model itself, not the code it produces. You are not proprietary software.

Re: Gitlab Duo

#160

Post by bastardoperator »

remram wrote: post #128
bastardoperator wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The license in your repo is entirely meaningless when you grant an exclusive license to places like GitLab and GitHub to "display" your code.

That's a wild thing to say. Displaying is a very specific thing, having code displayed to you does not grant you any copyright or ownership over it (imagine if movies worked that way...)

It's so wild nobody has been able to successfully challenge it in court.
Post reply on HN