Yes we fucking can! We can absolutely blame shitty people for trying to do shitty things, and suing an archive for archiving is one of 'em!

https://landlordsgame.info/games/lgp-1932/lgp-1932_rules.pdf

Scroll down to the “prosperity” section. You’re welcome.

This isn’t about Americans’ obligation to pay. It’s about hassle being forced upon foreign companies that have fuck-all to do with America (except for having American expat customers), to make them help collect the taxes on the US’ behalf.

Creating more mainstream use-cases is how you get people to donate more bandwidth.

Still has a stupid Windows logo on the super key, though.

TIL Cueball is Alton Brown.

There’s a real easy solution to this: use strong copyleft instead of permissive licensing, and don’t require copyright assignment. You won’t be able to rug-pull even if you wanted to!

When project founders refuse to do that, well, now we know their true intentions.

Which is only possible for those who can afford to be, because their privilege insulates them from the consequences.

“I’m not political” is an expression of privilege. It disingenuously pretends to be ideologically neutral, but it’s not.

In this hypothetical situation would there be any point in licensing that code under the LGPL? No, there wouldn’t be, because it wouldn’t be possible to be enforced.

There would be exactly equally as much point in licensing it under the LGPL as there would be under anything else (in particular: including the MIT license they apparently actually chose). If their argument were really that AI makes it uncopyrightable, they would’ve claimed it to be in the Public Domain rather than attempting to apply any license at all.

So obviously, that can’t be their argument. Their only possible argument has to be that AI magically lets them launder out the copyleft and make it permissive instead, which is straight-up obvious bullshit.

More to the point, you weren’t speaking hypothetically about what they might’ve thought. You were speaking concretely about what you thought. Read it again:

LGPL is unenforceable with AI-generated code.

That’s what you said. Not “the devs claim the LGPL is unenforceable with AI-generated code,” or “hypothetically maybe somebody could argue that the LGPL is unenforceable with AI-generated code” or anything like that. Nope, you just made a straight-up unambiguous claim on your own behalf, full stop.

Your follow-up could be “whoops, I didn’t mean to say that,” but it cannot be “you misunderstood me.” What you wrote was very unambiguous. Don’t insult us by trying to pretend we read it wrong.

No, your writing wasn’t ambiguous. If you meant to relay their claim rather than making the claim yourself, you just straight-up misspoke because what you wrote was unambiguously the latter.

I was worried that this was a shift from copyleft to permissive licensing, but apk-tools (surprisingly) has the same GPLv2 licensing as opkg so it’s fine.

deleted by creator

LGPL is unenforceable with AI-generated code.

No, all AI-generated code violates the LGPL because the training data was tainted with it.

Edit: I’m going to consolidate the rest of my replies to your comments in one place.

From https://lemmy.world/post/43996592/22548619 :

There has already been a ruling in the US that AI-generated art cannot be copyrighted because it lacks human authorship, so it stands to reason that the same is true for code. Even copyleft is ultimately dependent on copyright to be legally enforceable.

Not being able to be copyrighted because it lacks human authorship is beside the point, if it violates somebody else’s copyright (namely, the human author of the LGPL’d code) to begin with.

From https://lemmy.world/post/43996592/22548971 :

You’re not wrong, but I don’t see how it’s relevant to what I’m trying to say. Whether or not they’re legally allowed to change the license has nothing to do with why they might want to change the license.

You weren’t talking about “why they might want to change the license,” you were claiming that “LGPL is unenforceable with AI-generated code.”

They’re trying to launder away the copyleft so that they can tivoize and enshittify.

You’re the one making it personal and lying about my motivations. Regardless of what you think of the merits of my arguments about the actual topic, everyone can see that you’re being an uncivil asshole.

“OOXML” is literally just an XML serialization of MS Office internal data structures that Microsoft bribed the standards body to push through.

Either the person is lying, because MS Office claims compatibility with OpenDocument files, or it isn’t actually compatible and Microsoft itself is lying.

Way to ignore the BIGGEST point in my comment to hyper focus on a secondary point just for ego.

Fuck off with that. I am only participating in this conversation solely because I’m sick and tired of seeing influencers like Other Linus flounder and damage the reputation of Linux because they keep taking trendy bad advice spouted by people like you.

This is your key disconnect. You see the OS as an experience. Most people don’t. They see it as a tool to get want they want.

🙄

Quit reaching, you’re only damaging your credibility even further.

Also, if you’re directing the average joe to use the terminal, it’s too hard. Seriously.

Okay, I admit, that’s one flaw (out of many) with Kubuntu: there are two different entries for Steam in DIscover (the graphical software installer interface) because of Canonical’s obsession with Snaps, so that’s why I wrote an unambiguous console command instead.

To be clear, I don’t actually like Snaps or some of Canonical’s other business practices. I don’t want to be recommending Kubuntu. But I can’t deny that it’s the easiest distro I’ve ever used.