maplebar @ maplebar @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

247

Joined

8 mo. ago

I'm not familiar with either of those projects or what you mean by "that stage", but why can't you and the community around them just fork them and continue development in a way that you prefer? What's stopping you?

What is Ubuntu doing to enshittify that can't be fixed or mitigated by source modifications or forks?

I don't get it... What is Ubuntu doing to enshittify their operating system that you can't mitigate through source modifications or switching to another free OS?

Unlike Windows and Mac users, if my Linux distro does something that I disagree with, I feel that I have plenty of power to do things about it on multiple levels. I left Ubuntu years ago, but there are plenty of things the community can do to make things better without relying on Canonical to do anything at all.

Google puts in more development power than anyone else. Any forks we’ve seen so far are only really soft forks, as in they only apply a few patches on top of what Google puts out, rather than taking the project in a new direction, because you’d be behind pretty quickly.

Ok, but what's stopping them other than a lack of desire?

FOSS programs can always be forked and developed independently of the original authors. That's the "freedom" that makes them FOSS in the first place. I have no desire to make my own fork of Android and its tooling, but if someone out there really wanted to do so, I don't see what is stopping them. (Other than things like locked down smart phone bootloaders, but that's got nothing to do with the FOSS part of this discussion.)

Partially, it’s only financially viable for Google to develop these projects, because they have those Android ads or benefit from a web with less tracking protection. This makes it extremely unlikely for any other organization to be able to splurge a similar amount of money, which brings us back to a fork just being unlikely.

I'm kind of skeptical of this idea. FOSS has almost always been able to succeed in the long term despite having a small fraction of the development budget of proprietary software, often due to the passion of weekend devs essentially donating their time to the cause. Whether it's Linux, Blender, Gitlab, Godot, Krita, etc., I can't think of a single FOSS project that has funding anywhere near the same level as their corporate rivals.

Sitting quietly in the cuck chair while his owner rambles for hours about who knows what.

It absolutely does... Can you elaborate on a situation in which FOSS gets enshittified?

Instead of hoping your instance does something, just make your own instance. That's the whole idea.

Right for the wrong reasons.

The best and most affordable way for Elon Musk to "make the world a better place" would be to drop dead.

i think this is old spice admitting that xAI is total bullshit

Well, to be 100% fair, it's all total bullshit.

Snowden really proved he wasn't a Russian spy when he... check notes... immediately fled to Russia with troves of American secrets...

the accepted terminology nowadays

Let's just redefine existing concepts to mean things that are more palatable to corporate control why don't we?

If you don't have the ability to build it yourself, it's not open source. Deepseek is "freeware" at best. And that's to say nothing of what the data is, where it comes from, and the legal ramifications of using it.

The way I see it, the most important thing right now is breaking up the biggest platforms. The biggest advantage that places like Facebook, Twitter and TikTok have right now is the network effect from having a fuck ton of users. But in a more fractured social media landscape, the tools that are the most open and federated will eventually come out on top.

Sounds a lot like Linus Torvalds back in the day, just saying...

Here's hoping the next RNC is held on Mt. Niesen, Switzerland. with its 11,674 steps. 🤞

Called it. Good job to the idiots who voted for this or didn't vote at all and allowed Trump to win. Nice work.

Racism. Next question.

Even in GPL and CC-BY-SA context you still retain copyright ownership over your work. I write GPL code for a modest living, and my real name copyright goes on everything I write. Likewise, your still asking to be credited in your CC-BY-SA music. Nothing wrong with that.

The point being is that we are making a conscious decision to license the things we create in a permissive way. Neither of us are anonymously dumping our work into the public domain because clearly we do care about ownership and copyright. That's well within our rights as creators.

Generative AI is exploiting our work and not even doing the bare minimum of following the licenses that we shared them under.

How does one test for this?

Data is replicable, doesn’t matter if you call it “work” or “ideas”.

Your mistake is thinking that "data" and "copyright" or "ownship" are the same thing. They aren't

You can download a song, and thus be in possession of the data of that song, and you can even copy the file within the parameters of copyright law.

However, simply having the data is not the same thing as owning or holding a license to the song itself, and so you are in violation of the law (where I live, at least) if you try to distribute that song or use it in a non-fair-use context.

IF you were to copy my work and exploit it in a for-profit context for millions of dollars (and you happened to be operating in a region in which applicable copyright laws happen to apply) you're damn right I would come after you for a slice of the pie, and I would almost certainly win. Just copying what I say and pasting it in a quote isn't something that I can prove damages on, because it isn't something you're profiting on in any way, so the idea of "enforcing" it is irrelevant and obviously not worth it.

I agree with you, corpos shouldn’t have this amount of power. But you won’t get there by trying to protect the work of artists writers etc with the exact same scheme corpos pulled to protect their power and interests. Like, it didn’t work, did it?

This is where we are going to have to disagree. I am absolutely willing to fight fire with fire by using the copyright system against big tech. I don't make the rules, but IF rules are to exist in terms of what is or is not fair use of copyrighted material, then I DO expect those rules to apply equitably. (Whether they will or not remains to be seen, but let's see what precedent gets set and I'll adapt from there.)

No copyright for me, thanks

Can I ask you a personal question: what do you create, and do you submit it to the public domain?

As for me, I write music, create art, make games and write computer code and do a number of other things that I absolutely claim ownership over. So, when I write a song or paint a picture who the fuck is anyone else to try to take that away from me or claim it as something that they own and control? I've written thousands of lines of GPL code and contributed to many hippy-dippy open source free software projects over my lifetime, and even in that kind of copyleft context we still maintain a copyright over the code we right (as seen at the top of every source and header file).

I only ask because I find that the people who are most pro-AI and most anti-copyright are generally people who have never created anything of their own--they've written no songs, they've drawn no pictures, they've written no stories--and now they incorrectly generative see AI as something that "evens the playing field" by compensating for their lack of skills and drive.

But I'll repeat myself, AI isn't ushering us into a post-copyright world where the little guy is empowered in anyway. It's just a punch of useful idiots downloading completely proprietary binary blobs from the biggest, richest corporations, fooling themselves into thinking that they're being empowered to create things when in reality they're just beta testing a plagiarism machine on a industrial scale that's designed to enrich the richest.