I couldn’t get the embedded link to work, but found the blog at https://machaddr.substack.com/p/why-some-satellites-use-netbsd Why some satellites use #NetBSD https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://machaddr.substack.com/p/why-some-satellites-use-netbsd
@agc
- 133 Followers
- 643 Following
- 1.8K Posts
Big guy
Well done, #apple ! Some bright spark forgot to whitelist ~/Music/Audio Music Apps/Project Templates, and now I am unable to save any changes to my #LogicPro templates. I've been com.apple.macl'ed.
M4 #Macbook pro, Sequoia 15.3.2.
com.apple.macl summary:
Automatic Addition: macOS automatically adds e.g. when the Open dialog is used
Undeletable Nature: Attempts to remove the attribute typically result in it being immediately restored by the system's sandbox mechanism
#factcheckasong Stawberry Letter 22.999998
Small article on how to make your own CDN with NetBSD
https://mastodon.bsd.cafe/@release_candidate/113097075044759583
https://mastodon.bsd.cafe/@release_candidate/113097075044759583
release_candidate (@[email protected])
https://it-notes.dragas.net/2024/09/03/make-your-own-cdn-netbsd/ #NetBSD #runbsd #cdn #homeserver #homelab
Read down the thread a bit more, it explains, much better than I can, how the AGPL puts additional conditions on any deployments. A packaging system can not know in advance whether users of packages accept those conditions. That's why the AGPL is not part of the default acceptable licenses in #pkgsrc, whatever Debian or any other body says (and however it has come to be described in files in the pkgsrc tree)
https://mastodon.sdf.org/@gdt/112984363552357139
https://mastodon.sdf.org/@gdt/112984363552357139
gdt (@[email protected])
@[email protected] That's incorrect. It is very clear from mk/license.mk that the fundamental definition is to consider a license acceptable if it is Free per the FSF, Open Source per OSI, or meets the Debian Free Software Guidelines per Debian. AGPL3 passes on all three counts, and it is unquestionably a Free Software license. There is an exception in pkgsrc policy -- which was made by the board of the NetBSD Foundation, not by pkgsrc, because of (bare?) fear of the AGPL.
Jonathan PerkinJust performed an initial test of a new feature for #pkgsrc #mktool, a parallel fetch client.
Testing against localhost, so no download speed interference, in wip/grafana, after distclean:
# using single-threaded curl
$ time bmake fetch
real 47m58.062s
user 13m35.410s
sys 33m43.399s
# using mktool
$ time bmake fetch
real 0m4.865s
user 0m5.087s
sys 0m7.445s
Absolutely astonishing performance (yes I had to check it actually did anything!), and currently only just over 200 lines of #rust.
Interesting thread that touches on copyright, EUPL, AGPL, SaaS. (And also has the answer to why #pkgsrc doesn't consider AGPL to be FOSS). #TLAalert
https://social.treehouse.systems/@marcan/112982874941526943
https://social.treehouse.systems/@marcan/112982874941526943
Hector Martin (@[email protected])
One of the *fundamental* qualities of FOSS is that FOSS licenses are *purely copyright licenses*. What this means is that their terms apply solely when software is copied or modified, which are actions which are controlled by copyright law, but *not* when you merely use the software yourself. This is a well-understood concept. The FSF [explains this](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ClickThrough) in the context of the GPL. @[email protected] also [wrote about this](https://flameeyes.blog/2020/03/23/the-gpl-is-not-an-eula/) (hi, I found your relevant blog post first this time! :P). This has *significant* implications, it's not just a curiosity. A license that imposes conditions on mere *usage* requires some form of click-through setup. Not having that would cause those usage terms to be thrown out by most courts, as there is no way for the user to be informed of the EULA and their obligations under it. You cannot agree to what you are unaware of. This is a *critical* legal distinction, because these EULA terms work *outside* of the framework of copyright law. Copyright law itself requires no click-through EULA: you can violate copyright law even if you are unaware of the terms and conditions, and it is the distributor's or editor's responsibility to comply with all appropriate licensing and copyright requirements when engaging in those actions. But mere *usage* of software that you have lawfully obtained does not invoke copyright law (modulo technicalities about "running software being a copy to RAM", but that's a whole separate [can of worms](https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1037&context=cybaris) with conflicting legal precedent, and the practical fact that if mere RAM copies are in fact copyright infringement then all of us would be committing copyright infringement every day, all day, in a huge number of situations). Put simply: a piece of software entirely devoid of a license agreement can be hosted on the creator's website, and the default protections of copyright law apply. You are not allowed to redistribute it, but you are allowed to download it and run it for your own personal usage. This distinction is encoded in the policies of many distribution FOSS projects, like Linux distributions. For example, [Fedora only allows FOSS licenses](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-approval/), and Gentoo [accepts all "FREE"](https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/tree/profiles/license_groups) licenses by default. This is representative of a very important point: neither of those distributions requires you to read or accept any of those licenses. The assumption is that anything considered "free" is purely a copyright license and that you, as a user, can just go and install distro packages and not read any licenses and be perfectly fine, and nothing you do short of redistributing the software itself could possibly violate them. But now we have a problem. Notice how both the Fedora and Gentoo allowed license lists include the EUPL. But the EUPL Article 5, if interpreted literally and assuming no other license conditions override it, imposes restrictions on mere usage: it is an EULA. If you download and use EUPL software, and then run it on a server, then the license *requires* you to ensure that users of your server are offered the complete and correct source code to the software running on your server. But how are you, as a user, supposed to know that? If you install software on Fedora or Gentoo the normal way, the system doesn't even tell you what license the software is distributed under, much less ask you to accept its terms. It's not supposed to be necessary, because FOSS licenses are supposed to be licenses and not EULAs. Now, since there is no license prompt, if a user were to actually do this, things get really weird. Let's say you run Gentoo or Fedora, install an EUPL package, and run it on a server without ensuring there is a source offer to its users, particularly in cases where the server action does not distribute the code itself (this gets messy with webapps with HTML/JS/CSS, so let's assume this is a simple database server). Now you are violating Article 5 of the EUPL... but you never agreed to said license terms, so courts are highly unlikely to find you liable for it. So who is liable? Are the distros? Is it a distro's job to ensure that end-user relevant license agreement terms are shown to users of its packaged software? Nobody knows... but then we reach the logical conclusion: either the EUPL is toothless because it is being treated as a non-EULA and users aren't being required to agree to its terms... or distributions themselves are in violation by not ensuring it is displayed to users. Linux distros might want to think twice about OSI's idea of FOSS licenses and whether they really want to carry software licensed under licenses with clear usage restrictions, regardless of what OSI says is free or not (and also modification restrictions for that matter, hi AGPL: that one causes a direct legal problem for distros themselves). Or perhaps the EUPL just doesn't protect against SaaS in practice, regardless of what its authors may claim.
Fesshole 🧻My employer added a clause in my last NDA stating that I was prohibited from saying anything "disparaging" about the company. Now when anyone asks about job postings I tell them, "I'm contractually obligated not to say anything disparaging about them." None have ever applied.
Peter N. M. HansteenThe #sshgropers are really throwing everything at the wall these days:
Aug 18 14:36:54 skapet sshd-session[71375]: Failed password for invalid user GNU/Linux from 4.247.176.60 port 39582 ssh2
#ssh #passwordgropers #passwordguessing #bruteforce #passwords #cybercrime
Also see https://nxdomain.no/~peter/hailmary_lessons_learned.html (prettier, G-tracked: https://bsdly.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-hail-mary-cloud-and-lessons-learned.html) and badness_enumerated_by_robots.html (prettified, G-tracked https://bsdly.blogspot.com/2018/08/badness-enumerated-by-robots.html)