I found that very confusing but I’m not very smart so that’s not a judgement to set your watch by.
Privacy is who can see or hear you, security is how protected from an adversary you are, anonymity is if people know who you are when you’re being seen or heard.
Open bathroom window facing the street is a privacy issue. Unlocked front door is a security issue. Uncovered face or tattoos or whatever when out in public is an anonymity issue.
The real question is what you’re trying to accomplish and why.
That informs your choices.
Privacy, security and anonymity are different things.
Just literally finding any reason to say no.
E: I want to be a little more clear, rather than policing language or tone, I responded to help that person understand. The mods did what they do and I believe rightly removed the offending posts.
I do believe the conditions around rust at the present moment create a perverse incentive. Because rust is a common language for junior developers and commonly has mit licenses and is very well suited to llm analysis from a running heap or code perspective it ends up being very useful and attractive to companies who want to get rid of senior devs, use more ai and not have to contribute their work back to the public.
That’s a perverse incentive.
Wow, where are those requirements published? I’m sure more people would follow the rules of the project if it were made clear that input is contingent upon some existing level of community involvement…
Of course, I have never seen such rules put in place except to exclude the most base mlm scam spammers on mailing lists, but that’s neither here nor there.
Shouldn’t my obvious willingness to engage with people about this topic serve as some sort of indicator that I’m serious and not “drive by”?
Shouldn’t the fact that I’m not being rude or crass like the other poster you brought up (to achieve rhetorical ends I’m not exactly clear on!) be an indicator that my input should be taken seriously?
So open source is only for people who already in the club then? Who gets to have a say? What are the restrictions on that say?
MIT defenders are laveyian satanists until someone has an opinion they disagree with lol.
I’m genuinely astounded that a recurring argument for simply dismissing suggestions to change the license to the one the original project had is “that’s my purse, I don’t know you!”
I could understand where you’re coming from if the people were, to a man, rude and demanding. Having read lots of threads about rust/mit rewrites of c/gpl stuff and participated in several, they’re pretty often just like me: politely presenting a perfectly reasonable argument even when met with very defensive pushback.
If you use Debian, even the simple “package popularity contest” is a default “no” in the installer.
That said, your personal conception of privacy is gonna be different than lots of other people’s.
Worth noting that a company used extremely small models and found something like 80+% of what mythos is claimed to have found.
The claimed circumstances are different, “mythos, go find exploits in open source codebases” vs “model, find a vulnerability in FreeBSD”, but there’s a subtle distinction.
Yes.
Open source is more than code, it’s software for everyone including non programmers.
Oh no, with so few gpl packages how will i maintain an unkempt beard and bald ponytail?! How will my ketchup stained Grateful Dead tee hold together at this critical low level of gpl? At this rate my bare feet will stop stinking up the break room!
Oh no, a non gpl package on my computer? How did you find out about my one weakness! I’m melting, melting! Oh, what a world, what a cruel, cruel world!
lol at “users don’t count”
The enclosure of the commons.
It’s a thing that happened a long time ago during the Industrial Revolution in England where land that people used to grow subsistence or cash crops for their own use as opposed to their lords use (land called the commons) was fenced in and given to newly elevated lords as estates.
The effect was that people who could live in villages before were forced to move to the cities and live in slums or poorhouses and became laborers in mills.
E: clarity
It establishes and defends intellectual property held in common by all of humanity.
N.B. held in common, not public domain. The property and right of all people for all time.
Our new present and its future requires the defense of ideas for all.
Of course, if you want to feel smug and know you’re on the winning team then be assured we are going to be losing copyleft soon.
The code in question is a rewrite of a gpl licensed c package in rust under the mit license.
The “completely random person with no relevance to the project” specifically in reference to uutils-coreutils, but I will stand on the assessment for every other rust/mit rewrite of a c/gpl package, is in every instance a contributor, maintainer or user of the gpl package it’s based on and therefore neither random or irrelevant.
They are always people saying “hey, we wanna help but your license is standing in the way, why not change it so we can more easily work together?” Or “this project is great but the license is too permissive, since the thing it’s based on got by great with gpl, couldn’t the license be changed to gpl?”
Forking over license would be counterproductive and silly when the thing in question is a reimplementation of a gpl package. Literally just use the license that the original work had!
From my perspective the people asking rust/MIT rewrites of gpl/c stuff to go back to gpl are being perfectly reasonable and have every possible definition of standing to make that request and always get treated as interlopers.
I believe you about the spite thing though. People do be spiteful.
While you’re right that this isn’t the thread about someone’s private learning project (btw, allowed under gpl), plenty of personal learning projects have changed license when they grew beyond the scope of just some guy messing around.
Part of refactoring during that growth includes administration and licenses are part of that.
Projects I have personally written had to have a license applied or changed when their scope changed.
I think especially once several companies employees are acting in their official capacities in the project it’s very reasonable to bring up the license!
We havent even touched on the violation of the gpl aspect, where no programmer and certainly not one using a llm could be reasonably thought to be ignorant of the gpl coreutils inner workings and doing a clean room implementation which is what is legally required to not be considered a derivative work!
Decades ago the gpl assholes had to figure out that you can’t use the license to stop Sony from doing something you won’t use it to stop your neighbor from doing.
The way around that is to make the rust rewrite gpl.
They’re not unrelated. Lauded projects to rewrite some gpled c thing in rust are almost universally mit licensed.
Attempts to get those licenses changed are almost universally met with a line in the sand.
If it doesn’t matter then why not use the original projects license?
I know you’re not able to read minds or responsible for the greater rust community but how come when I or anyone else asks the above question of any mit licensed rust project is the answer never “huh, I guess if the license doesn’t matter then we can gpl it no problem!” And always “no, and get your politics out of my code!”
It clearly matters to someone because everyone’s feet are always dug in to the sand about sticking with mit.
The mit license allows someone (some company) to modify the open source codebase and sell the result without making their modifications public.
It allows the software equivalent of the enclosure of the commons.
If there was a particularly large or significant and widespread codebase —like for example the coreutils— that was used everywhere and mit licensed, a company could make their own slightly different coreutils without publicizing the differences and use their position in the market to enclose the commons of knowledge about the use of that software. Such a situation would lead to a fractured feature ecosystem and confusion around best practices. In that environment, the biggest and most popular software distributor would benefit because their product would be most common and therefore the best target to design around.
I know there’s a lot of “coulds” and “woulds” in that sentence, but that’s exactly what happened in the 80s and 90s with the ostensibly open source Unix codebase and the reason why the gpl was invented.
Rust based MIT licensed coreutils
The document lockstep gets its name from is legitimate as far as I can tell and several “trusted” fact checking websites corroborate this. Searching blue beam brings you straight to the weird Canadian guy who espouses its’ Wikipedia article. The Franklin credit scandal (the series of events the idea of project monarch is commonly associated with) has its own Wikipedia article.
I’m not gonna “spar” with you. Reply however you like, you will absolutely have the last word.
The point of this reply is to show how weasely and dishonest you are being. That kind of behavior just drives people who are being exposed to the real continuing horrors of our institutions through entertainment further away from you and attracts observers to you who feel more comfortable dismissing claims as opposed to investigating them.
Consider possibly not being such a fucking redditor in the future.
I cannot stress enough how bad of an idea it is to try and use a boot or portable apps usb.
Schools and companies are generally very alert about that kind of thing due to many many high profile incidents of malware, ransomware, data exfiltration etc, and also all the movies and tv shows.
Bring your own device is the only way. Bring your own network is often a necessity, so be prepared to tether your phone to your device for internet access.
You also probably want to look normal too. Swallow your pride and use a mac when you do this and no one will bat an eye. Break out the duct taped together thinkpad at your own risk.