Yeah, it definitely is more appealing from a marketing perspective.
I do understand why some projects might wanna use the term, it’s to their advantage to be associated with “open source” even if the source code itself has a proprietary license.
The problem is that then it makes it harder / more confusing to check for actually openly licensed code, since then it’s not clear what term to use. Already “free software” can be confused with “free as in free beer”.
That discussion concluded essentially the same thing I said: that both the OSI and the FSF have essentially the same conditions and that “merely having the source available is not enough to meet what the OSD defines as open source” (sic).
Don’t police perfectly innocent and common use of language please.
Using “open source” for all kinds of source, regardless of how restrictive its license is, is definitely not a common use of the term.
People aren’t gonna start using “open source” like that just because a few people find it more convenient for the marketing of their projects. To me it sounds like they are the ones policing to push for a particular language standard against what people commonly use, which is what makes language prescriptive, instead of descriptive.
I guess it’s better than not providing any source code. What’s wrong is calling it “open source” when it isn’t.
VVVVVV and Anodyne are some examples of “source available” games.
According to the definition from the Open Source Initiative, “open source” also requires free redistribution. See the first point (emphasis mine).
- Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
It also requires freedom to distribute modifications:
- Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
CC-BY-NC-ND is not “open source” (both due to the NC and the ND), it’s more of a “source available” type of license (when applied to source code). The difference between “free software” and “open source” is more ideological than anything else, they both define the same freedoms, just with different ideological objectives / goals.
I think that was already done a while ago with Swanstation libretro core.
Also I expect there should be more surveillance around powerful people like Larry Ellison, right?
The more powerful, the more important is to ensure good behavior, and the more public / peer-reviewed the AI model and its logs should be to avoid tampering/laundering.
Is “intent” what makes all the difference? I think doing something bad unintentionally does not make it good, right?
Otherwise, all I need to do something bad is have no bad intentions. I’m sure you can find good intentions for almost any action, but generally, the end does not justify the means.
I’m not saying that those who act unintentionally should be given the same kind of punishment as those who do it with premeditation… what I’m saying is that if something is bad we should try to prevent it in the same level, as opposed to simply allowing it or sometimes even encourage it. And this can be done in the same way regardless of what tools are used. I think we just need to define more clearly what separates “bad” from “good” specifically based on the action taken (as opposed to the tools the actor used).
I think that’s the difference right there.
One is up for debate, the other one is already heavily regulated currently. Libraries are generally required to have consent if they are making straight copies of copyrighted works. Whether we like it or not.
What AI does is not really a straight up copy, which is why it’s fuzzy, and much harder to regulate without stepping in our own toes, specially as tech advances and the difference between a human reading something and a machine doing it becomes harder and harder to detect.
Content curated by “the core geeks and nerds” might appeal to “geeks and nerds”, not to those consumers.
They want “consumer” content. And if one day they get tired of it then I doubt any amount of “steak” would have stopped them leaving anyway, since that was never what they were looking for. It’s not like reddit has to be the only place they visit in the internet, nor is the internet their only source of consumption. Just because you go to a snack bar does not mean that’s the only place you go for meals.
Saying that I dont trust a homophobe is not “sharing my political opinions”
That’s true.
However, you did not just say that. You mentioned how he supports some homophobic politics (ie. regulation against gay marriage), which you (and I’m sure a lot of people, me included) disagree with. That’s politics.
You also shared your opinion about why you think privacy is important for our society. That’s also politics.
I’m not saying that what you said is wrong… I’m saying that what you said is political. Sharing political opinions is ok. It’s not like talking about politics is somehow a bad thing. At least not in this context. A lot of what surrounds the choice of a web browser like this is political.
In that counter argument they are essentially admitting that 99% of their content was distributed without the copyright holder’s consent.
In the CDL lawsuit, they have admitted that of the millions of books we have digitized, they themselves have only made about 33,000 available to libraries; only about 1% of what we have done, and only under restrictive and expensive license agreements. This is, they claim, the essence of their copyright rights: the ability to restrict access to information as they see fit, to further their theoretical economic interests, without regard to libraries traditional functions and the greater public good.
Was it fair use in the past to redistribute reprints/format-conversions of works without the copyright holders consent?
I agree that copyright law sucks… but that’s why it needs to change so it actually serves “the greater public good”. The judiciary system is not the right place to advocate for that (they don’t make the law, just interpret it), so I don’t really think there’s much hope in them winning this. Sadly.
You share public keys when registering the passkey on a third party service, but for the portability of the keys to other password managers (what the article is about) the private ones do need to be transferred (that’s the whole point of making them portable).
I think the phishing concerns are about attackers using this new portability feature to get a user (via phishing / social engineering) to export/move their passkeys to the attacker’s store. The point is that portability shouldn’t be so user-friendly / transparent that it becomes exploitable.
That said, I don’t know if this new protocol makes things THAT easy to port (probably not?).