4 ms·

I've set up a socks5 "proxy multiplexer" that routes requests to different upstream proxies based on the request hostname. For example reddit routes via a VPS i

by Retr0id 4mo ago

I've set up a socks5 "proxy multiplexer" that routes requests to different upstream proxies based on the request hostname. For example reddit routes via a VPS in Dublin, and imgur routes via Tor. I believe socks5 is the ideal layer to do the multiplexing at, for web traffic, because the request hostnames are visible to the multiplexer even if ECH/ESNI is in use. It was a oneshot vibecoded solution but it's been pretty solid thus far, so maybe I should open-source it. I wrap the outbound sock5 traffic in mTLS, so it should look "normal" to anyone packet sniffing (not obvious proxy/VPN traffic), even though stealthiness isn't part of the threat model at the moment.

BLKNSLVR 4mo ago
Please do open source it, I'd be interested in running something similar.
bigiain 4mo ago
Perhaps consider putting it in public domain instead of using an "open source" license? There's a decent legal ethical argument that LLM output isn't copyrightable, and for me a "one shot vibe code" definitely _isn't_ "your creative work", so the copyright that open source licenses rely on probably doesn't exist there. I wonder if a new category of "non copyrighted shared source code" needs to exist for people who use Gan AUI to create genuinely useful software which would ne a net positive to society if shared, but that doesn't risk murkying the waters and undermining the copyright basis that licenses like GPL and Apache and BSD and MIT rely on?
- farnsworthfusor 4mo ago
  If LLM output isn't copyrightable then it's already public domain, even if you say it isn't - if this is true you can just ignore the wishes of the person who thinks they're the copyright holder.
  - marcus_holmes 4mo ago
    this. The whole licensing of software stands on copyright. If the content is already in the public domain because it was generated by an LLM (copyright only protects human works) then it can't be licensed. However, there's no compunction to publish the generated code, even if it's public domain. We end up in a strange nega-OSS world where all code can be used by anyone for any reason, if you can get your hands on it.
    - PeterStuer 4mo ago
      If you believe this, then this was always the case. LLM's only made it cheaper and more accesible.
      - marcus_holmes 4mo ago
        Sorry I don't understand, what am I believing that has always been the case?
        PeterStuer 4mo ago
        That you could reimplement a software and then be license free. Or did I read you wrong?
        marcus_holmes 4mo ago
        That's a separate thing. I mean, valid, and a good point to raise, but I wasn't raising it. I was more talking about the weird space we're getting into where code is completely open, because it was generated and cannot have any copyright protection, but also unpublished, and so effectively proprietary. The opposite of OSS, where code is available but protected by copyright-based licenses.
        farnsworthfusor 4mo ago
        That's true. You can write software that duplicates the functionality of existing software and by doing that you can evade the copyright of that software.
- Retr0id 4mo ago
  I don't believe in copyright, personally.
  - bigiain 4mo ago
    Whether you believe that copyright _should_ exist is quite different from whether it _actually_ exists and whether there are consequences due to the existence of copyright. All "open source" licenses rely on copyright. If copyright did not exist, GPL and BSD and MIT (and all the other software license options, open and commercial) would be unenforceable. (I'm less convinced that you seem to be about whether there arte any good reasons for copyright. I believe real "creative people" like authors and musicians and artists and film makers _should_ have a legally enforceable monopoly to control use of and to generate income from their creative work. That shouldn't be "Micky Mouse" effectively eternal control, but there should in my opinion be some legally protected "ownership" that a creator has where they can prevent other people copying/recreating/misusing/profiting from their creation. Whether this should ever have applied to softwares something for a more nuances discussion t6hat a website comment section...)
lmz 4mo ago
For browser traffic another alternative is proxy autoconfig scripts to put the proxy routing logic in JS.

by Retr0id 4mo ago

BLKNSLVR 4mo ago

Please do open source it, I'd be interested in running something similar.

bigiain 4mo ago

Perhaps consider putting it in public domain instead of using an "open source" license? There's a decent legal ethical argument that LLM output isn't copyrightable, and for me a "one shot vibe code" definitely _isn't_ "your creative work", so the copyright that open source licenses rely on probably doesn't exist there. I wonder if a new category of "non copyrighted shared source code" needs to exist for people who use Gan AUI to create genuinely useful software which would ne a net positive to society if shared, but that doesn't risk murkying the waters and undermining the copyright basis that licenses like GPL and Apache and BSD and MIT rely on?

farnsworthfusor 4mo ago
If LLM output isn't copyrightable then it's already public domain, even if you say it isn't - if this is true you can just ignore the wishes of the person who thinks they're the copyright holder.
- marcus_holmes 4mo ago
  this. The whole licensing of software stands on copyright. If the content is already in the public domain because it was generated by an LLM (copyright only protects human works) then it can't be licensed. However, there's no compunction to publish the generated code, even if it's public domain. We end up in a strange nega-OSS world where all code can be used by anyone for any reason, if you can get your hands on it.
  - PeterStuer 4mo ago
    If you believe this, then this was always the case. LLM's only made it cheaper and more accesible.
    - marcus_holmes 4mo ago
      Sorry I don't understand, what am I believing that has always been the case?
      - PeterStuer 4mo ago
        That you could reimplement a software and then be license free. Or did I read you wrong?
        marcus_holmes 4mo ago
        That's a separate thing. I mean, valid, and a good point to raise, but I wasn't raising it. I was more talking about the weird space we're getting into where code is completely open, because it was generated and cannot have any copyright protection, but also unpublished, and so effectively proprietary. The opposite of OSS, where code is available but protected by copyright-based licenses.
        farnsworthfusor 4mo ago
        That's true. You can write software that duplicates the functionality of existing software and by doing that you can evade the copyright of that software.
Retr0id 4mo ago
I don't believe in copyright, personally.
- bigiain 4mo ago
  Whether you believe that copyright _should_ exist is quite different from whether it _actually_ exists and whether there are consequences due to the existence of copyright. All "open source" licenses rely on copyright. If copyright did not exist, GPL and BSD and MIT (and all the other software license options, open and commercial) would be unenforceable. (I'm less convinced that you seem to be about whether there arte any good reasons for copyright. I believe real "creative people" like authors and musicians and artists and film makers _should_ have a legally enforceable monopoly to control use of and to generate income from their creative work. That shouldn't be "Micky Mouse" effectively eternal control, but there should in my opinion be some legally protected "ownership" that a creator has where they can prevent other people copying/recreating/misusing/profiting from their creation. Whether this should ever have applied to softwares something for a more nuances discussion t6hat a website comment section...)

lmz 4mo ago

For browser traffic another alternative is proxy autoconfig scripts to put the proxy routing logic in JS.