eleijeep

I’m referring to discovery, not search for end-users.

Most countries have regulations for companies to retain all internal communications for discovery purposes in the event that they are involved in a lawsuit.

How do you handle retention for discovery purposes if every email is encrypted?

Not a single mention that Mozilla acquired an ad company, tried to put user-profiling functionality in the browser for ad networks to use, changed their ToS to remove the part that says they don’t sell your data and partnered with a sketchy “data protection” service that it turned out was owned by the same person as some people-finder data-brokers.

Maybe if we want an open source project to be the bastion of private AI that respects your data and doesn’t surveil you, as Anil suggests, perhaps it should be a company that we still trust?

what licence can we use to force any entity using a library to make their project open-source

GPL requires this, since linking with a library is considered a derivative work even if the library is dynamically loaded.

This is why the LGPL exists, which makes the library copyleft but does not extend the derivative work classification to programs linking with the library.

Interesting, but ultimately a roundabout justification for why the author chose a non-FOSS license for their startup Slack-clone built on ATProto.

They talk about “pro-labor licensing” but what they mean is pro- their -labor, not pro- anyone else’s -labor.

GPL is already the most pro-labor licensing since it respects the work of anyone who contributes in equal measure, and does not hold the “original” founding author in higher regard.

It’s really quite something to rail so unequivocally against the “fascistic mega-corps” and “autocratic corpostates” in your licensing justification blog post and then build your commercial product on top of Bluesky .

The GPL doesn’t place any restrictions on selling or profiting from GPL licensed works. It only requires that anyone distributing the work provides the recipients with the same rights under the GPL, ie. the right to view, modify and redistribute the source code.

This means that a company cannot take a GPL licensed work and turn it into a proprietary product.

GPL is the only thing standing between us and Embrace-Extend-Extinguish.

There’s a reason that “Stallman was right” is a meme in the FOSS world.

Do you think IBM wouldn’t make Red Hat completely proprietary if they had the chance? They already tried to use their customer licensing to restrict source access!

It only takes one successful proprietary product to gain mind-share and market-share and become a new de-facto standard, and then all of the original FOSS has to play catch-up and stay compatible to stay relevant.

See Jabber/XMPP for an example.

The post is about NixOS. The intro paragraph about Arch is just a preamble to provide the motivation for switching.

the broadcom module is always significantly behind the kernel

Right, but if it’s not unmaintained then you only have to wait a finite amount of time before you get to update your kernel again yes?

chesscom bad lichess good

but held packages like your kernel impact other software as well

Well… I’d be interested to hear what user-space impacts you’ve experienced from running a kernel that’s “weeks or even months behind the latest kernel .”

Oh it’s the transphobic billionaire’s game. Nice 👍

You need to learn about e and E motions, but also $ will take you to the end of the line.

Vulnerable to going extinct.

If you read the article it briefly touches on how the “doom spiral” could affect the trajectory of a language that is not widely spoken. It’s not a great article though, it just repeats the same thing for several pages, points the finger at wikipedia instead of the content-generation farms and then fails to properly conclude the argument of their presumed hypothesis.

Could you please use the cross-post feature instead of making a separate post in each community? That way our front-ends can consolidate multiple cross-posts into one post instead of it being listed multiple times.

Honestly, doing it your way looks like spam. This is what I see in my feed:

Maybe you didn’t see the link, but the PDF of the original paper is linked by the page in the post: https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/639.pdf

The paper that you found is also interesting and references the 2022 paper.

Reading the article, I don’t think they’re trying to imply what is suggested by the headline, ie. that the real-name registration system is being abused somehow to scam people.

Rather it’s an article pointing out that the real-name registration system did not help to combat the already rising number of scams, which was the reason that the government gave for passing the law.

It doesn’t seem to be phone-specific either:

Hong Kong has seen a sharp increase in overall scam-related crime figures in recent years. Between 2020 and 2024, the number of scams reported to police almost tripled.

It’s a useful data point to argue against any similar initiatives in other countries, where they may use the same reasoning to justify the law. It doesn’t seem to make a difference, as criminals will always find a way regardless of the hoops that you make law-abiding citizens jump through.

The army of corporate boot lickers in the mobile phone context is largely composed of people who think banking on a smartphone is wise

This is extremely reductive and oblivious to the actual realities of banking in various countries. If you think it’s easy to be “unbanked” then I would suggest that you try it yourself first.

Because some banks now require you to authenticate every payment (eg. online payments using your debit card) and every new recipient for bank transfers, using their phone app. The apps rely on the chain of trust that Google and Apple provide with their TPM or “secure enclave” chips to cryptographically authenticate that it is indeed the same device that the bank previously authorized.

Online banking via the website of these banks will still require at least one tap on the phone app to authorize any transfers that you make on the website.

Linux phones (and custom Android ROMs) don’t benefit from this same chain of trust, and so even if they have the secure chip in the hardware, the banking apps don’t have a convenient API to query it, so the banking apps just don’t work.

Banking fraud causes a serious amount of money lost to criminals each year so it’s not surprising that the banks want better ways of determining if a request is really coming from their customer('s device) and not a criminal who phished their online banking password.

This situation won’t change unless either Linux phones gain in popularity enough that the banks decide to port their apps to the platform or a law is passed saying that banks must support more than just Google and Apple (ie. custom roms etc.) at which point the work will be done to use the hardware attestation available in the phone on other software platforms.

Switching your firefox profile to a firefox fork is super easy peasy squeezy cheesy peas.

You just need to follow the steps for moving your profile in this Firefox support article: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/back-and-restore-information-firefox-profiles

When you start librewolf or whatever you switch to (librewolf is what I use) it will have everything from Firefox including whatever your last session was (if you save your session) and all of your history and bookmarks and even addons and UI customization etc.