42 Followers
119 Following
105 Posts
Chaos incarnate because I myself don't know what I'll do next.
PronounsAny/All
Githubhttps://github.com/HikariNee
Codeberghttps://codeberg.org/hikari
Guide on how to comply with California's "Age Verification" AB1043 as a software developer:

What to do:
* Don't give a shit because you don't live in California.
* If you live in California, leave California.
* If leaving is not an option, wait for a legal precedent for compliance has been set and implement the minimum requirements of the bill into your software (a very simple age bracket selection box during install will probably do more than enough).

What not to do:
* Already start proposing stupid and extremely deep implementations into xdg-desktop or d-bus. (Ubuntu)

What absolutely not to do:
* Freak the fuck out and relicense your entire codebase to a non-free software license because of a law not going into a effect for another year while you don't even live in California... (MidnightBSD)

Spritely Hoot, our Scheme->WASM compiler (and all-around WASM toolkit) hits 0.8.0, and this one is a BIG release! https://spritely.institute/news/hoot-0-8-0-released.html

For the first time you can LIVE develop web applications using Hoot, from the comfort of your own editor! See the video at the top!

Plus lots of other bugfixes and goodies!

Hoot 0.8.0 released! — Spritely Institute

(Sparkles) yk how much i hate posting about trpol but i need to ask for a solidarity call right now.

(citing
Kaos GL despite I fucking hate them for certain personal reasons because they explained the proposal better)

there is an unconfirmed new bill proposal that emerged on the Türkiye newspaper that proposes to:
- raise the age limit for gender affirming surgeries to 25 (despite the
de jure limit for it being 18 and the de facto limit being 22 - explained in the thread)
- and prosecute those who have gender affirming surgery through "unauthorized means" (i.e. abroad) with 3 to 7 years in prison, and if the gender affirming surgery is performed on a child or by an unauthorized person the penalties would be increased by one half
- any person who undergoes gender affirming surgery through unauthorized means will be sentenced to one to three years in prison
- a person who behaves in contrary to their "biological sex" or against "general morality" or publicly praises or promotes such behaviour, will be prosecuted with 1.5-3 years in prison


and i need to call people for solidarity in queer people of Turkey so that this bill shan't pass, please boost this

the "general morality" part of this bill is already being enforced
de facto against openly queer people despite not being de jure and failing to pass the Assembly with the 11th Judical Package
Pro-government newspaper claims: Provisions removed from the 11th Judicial Package are back on the agenda!

According to the provisions that were removed from the 11th Judicial Package and are now claimed to be back on the agenda, prison sentences would be introduced for LGBTI+ people, and the minimum age for gender affirming surgeries would be raised to 25.

Kaos GL - News Portal for LGBTI+
Why almost nobody vendors their dependencies anymore: https://nesbitt.io/2026/02/10/lockfiles-killed-vendoring.html
Lockfiles Killed Vendoring

Why almost nobody vendors their dependencies anymore.

Andrew Nesbitt

Happy birthday, Blender! 🎂

Today, your own 3D software turns 2⁵! Here's to many more years of Freedom to Create.

#b3d

Please Fund My Continued Accessibility Work on GNOME!

I have been under distress lately due to personal circumstances that are outside my control. I cannot find a permanent job that allows me to function, I am not eligible for government benefits, my grant proposals to work on free and open-source projects got rejected, paid internships are quite difficult to find, especially when many of them prioritize new contributors. Essentially, I have no stable, monthly income that allows me to sustain myself. I would really appreciate any kinds of donations, especially ones that happen periodically to increase my monthly income. These donations will allow me to sustain myself while allowing me to work on accessibility throughout GNOME, essentially ‘crowdfunding’ development without doing it on the behalf of the GNOME Foundation or another organization. I accept donations through the following platforms: Liberapay (free and open-source platform) Ko-fi GitHub Sponsors

TheEvilSkeleton

CSS is one way to ruin your life.

#css

GPLv2 affirmation…

I don’t generally post here as people have probably noticed, but here’s a pdf of a recent court ruling, and this turns out to be the easiest way for me to link to a copy of it, since I don’t really maintain any web presence normally and I don’t want to post pdf’s to the kernel mailing lists or anything like that.

And the reason I want to post about it, is that it basically validates my long-held views that the GPLv2 is about making source code available, not controlling the access to the hardware that it runs on.

The court case itself is a mess of two bad parties: Vizio and the SFC. Both of them look horribly bad in court - for different reasons.

Vizio used Linux in their TVs without originally making the source code available, and that was obviously not ok.

And the Software Freedom Conservancy then tries to make the argument that the license forces you to make your installation keys etc available, even though that is not the case, and the reason why the kernel is very much GPLv2 only. The people involved know that very well, but have argued otherwise in court.

End result: both parties have acted badly. But at least Vizio did fix their behavior, even if it apparently took this lawsuit to do so. I can’t say the same about the SFC.

Please, SFC - stop using the kernel for your bogus legal arguments where you try to expand the GPLv2 to be something it isn’t. You just look like a bunch of incompetent a**holes.

The only party that looks competent here is the judge, which in this ruling says

Plaintiff contends the phrases, “machine-readable” and “scripts used to control compilation and installation” support their assertion in response to special interrogatory no. 4 that Defendant should “deliver files such that a person of ordinary skill can compile the source code into a functional executable and install it onto the same device, such that all features of the original program are retained, without undue difficulty.”

The language of the Agreements is unambiguous. It does not impose the duty which is the subject of this motion.

Read as a whole, the Agreements require Vizio to make the source code available in such a manner that the source code can be readily obtained and modified by Plaintiff or other third parties. While source code is defined to include “the scripts used to control compilation and installation,” this does not mean that Vizio must allow users to reinstall the software, modified or otherwise, back onto its smart TVs in a manner that preserves all features of the original program and/or ensures the smart TVs continue to function properly. Rather, in the context of the Agreements, the disputed language means that Vizio must provide the source code in a manner that allows the source code to be obtained and revised by Plaintiff or others for use in other applications.

In other words, Vizio must ensure the ability of users to copy, change/modify, and distribute the source code, including using the code in other free programs consistent with the Preamble and Terms and Conditions of the Agreements. However, nothing in the language of the Agreements requires Vizio to allow modified source code to be reinstalled on its devices while ensuring the devices remain operable after the source code is modified. If this was the intent of the Agreements, the Agreements could have been readily modified to state that users must be permitted to modify and reinstall modified software on products which use the program while ensuring the products continue to function. The absence of such language is dispositive and there is no basis to find that such a term was implied here. Therefore, the motion is granted.

IOW, this makes it clear that yes, you have to make source code available, but no, the GPLv2 does not in any way force you to then open up your hardware.

My intention - and the GPLv2 - is clear: the kernel copyright licence covers the software, and does not extend to the hardware it runs on. The same way the kernel copyright license does not extend to user space programs that run on it.

I've been writing myself a blog site but now I feel that the code is too hacky and want to give up and cry.

Merry Christmas everybody, hope you had a joyous day today!

Life may not be like what we envisioned, but we're still somewhere, and that's worth celebrating.

So, have fun.