41–50 of 186 posts
I wonder if there’s a “git over BitTorrent”. Having a cryptographically signed (by authors, not by GitHub) and fully open source git hosting network would be a boom for FOSS security in general.
Why are emulators illegal? I understand that they are associated with piracy because people play pirates games on them. But it’s like banning BitTorrent because it allows you to pirate, or Windows because you can play pirates games on it as well. The article mentions that emulators “illegally circumvent Nintendo’s technological protection measures and run illegal copies of Switch games.”. But which law makes it illeg…
Emulators per se are not illegal. Most likely.
I wonder if there’s a “git over BitTorrent”. Having a cryptographically signed (by authors, not by GitHub) and fully open source git hosting network would be a boom for FOSS security in general.
What’s stopping you from making torrents of your repos now? (Not as a rhetorical question; I don’t quite understand your vision, so I’m hoping you’ll clarify the usage.)
I'd assume that op wants a torrent that can be pushed/pulled from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s stopping you from making torrents of your repos now? (Not as a rhetorical question; I don’t quite understand your vision, so I’m hoping you’ll clarify the usage.)
The torrents would be snapshots of the repo at a particular point in time. Updates couldn't be fetched through the torrent via git pull. I'd assume that op wants a torrent that can be pushed/pulled from.
I wonder if there’s a “git over BitTorrent”. Having a cryptographically signed (by authors, not by GitHub) and fully open source git hosting network would be a boom for FOSS security in general.
Git commit messages could be cryptographically signed. And git, the protocol is fully open source. Also there are many open source UI. Care to explain what is the usecase of git of torrent compared to gitlab?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're DMCA'ing code they have no right to DMCA - it was released under a permissive OSS license. Sure they own the copyright but they also gave everyone a license to distribute it. Adhering to these fraudulent DMCA requests endangers all of OSS.
Nintendo aren't using the DMCA takedown process for copyright-infringing material (the thing people normally mean by DMCA). They're sending letters to GitHub about how Yuzu is, in their view, a tool for circumvention of technological protection measures and therefore illegal in itself (under different provisions of the DMCA).
How did Tropic Haze make money if Yuzu and Citra were free. I could not find other products they sell. In consequence, how could they pay millions to Nintendo?