markus99Debian nübs asking when Plasma 6 will hit their repos
Wasn’t it just released or something? It’ll be there on the next release. Maybe…
TimeSquirrelAre you licensing your comments??
I mean I get it might be because of being afraid of it being used to train LLMs. But I doubt that it would work, either because they won’t be used regardless or because of how federation works, i.e. literally it’d be more efficient if all of the known network instances’ operators somehow agreed to include/Lemmy, kbin and all of the micro logging platforms that can federate with Lemmy included a robots.txt that blocks known AI crawlers. Probably what would be more useful would be something that e.g. Akkoma and some other AP implementers offer, i.e. message autodeletion.
Also terrible if you want to retain any anonymity even if more people did it, because of stylometry.
Possibly linuxYes he does and it drives me crazy.
At least its not the BSD license. Screw those guys, amirite?
Almost as bad as the MIT license.
Why? Did I miss the joke?
Its not a very funny joke, sadly.
The FOSS community was doing fine with BSD and GNU v1 & v2, maybe the odd MIT licenses for decades. Or, decade. Or both. Or neither, if thats your bent. They were substantially similar: here’s the code, this is the license. You may modify the code hut not the license, and any derivative code must contain the original license. Oh and it has to include the code. Some allowed for commercial use, some did not. Not everybody liked that.
Then one day someone, I think it was Apache, decided no these terms don’t work for us, we don’t like to release the code and we want commercial use and to sell support. So they cut a new license. Not everybody cared, and Apache was happy.
Likewise, GNU foundation decided they wanted to compete in commercial space and allow for commercially supported releases, allowing .COMs to make money using and supporting what used to be FOSS. GNUv3 license got issued. Most of everybody who cared didn’t like that, but at least IBM, Oracle and Amazon are happy.
And then suddenly everyone was cutting their own licenses, and people who cared kinda gave up on it and went with what works.
Eventually, the people behind Wikipedia and the mediawiki software decided the People needed a license, so the Creative Commons license was born. I’m not well read in it, but I gather it us favorable for content producers, and is aaserted in “arenas of public discourse” (my own term) where content derives from individual contributors mostly as prophylaxis against trawlers, scrapers, aggregators and (to be tested,) LLMs.
Of course, asserting the license and defending against contrary use of the content is incumbent on the licensor, and must be defended in civil court. Not everybody can afford a lawyer, and EFF and the Open Source Initiative aren’t rich enough to litigate everything pro bono.
Any or all of the preceding might or might not be bullshit, but its my good faith read of the license shenanigans the last 10 years as I’ve bothered to pay attention to them.
EFL-2.0 just to be a dork about it.
Eiffel Forum License, Version 2
Eiffel Forum License, version 2 1: Permission is hereby granted to use, copy, modify and/or distribute this package, provided that: copyright notices are retained unchanged, any distribution of this package, whether modified or not, includes this license text. 2: Permission is hereby also granted to distribute binary programs which depend on this package. If the binary program depends on a modified version of this package, you are encouraged to publicly release the modified version of this package.
You can license anything you want. Question is whether you can afford to assert it when it comes time to.
©solidgrue@lemmyworld, 2024