4 ms·

It's not that complicated. If there's a law that says "Anyone who distributes X must also Y" and you can't figure out a way to continue distributing X while al

It's not that complicated. If there's a law that says "Anyone who distributes X must also Y" and you can't figure out a way to continue distributing X while also doing Y, the way you comply with the law is that you stop distributing X.

DoctorOetker 2mo ago
None of this answers the question: even if @Irvick stops distributing or participating in any way with this "stagex" distro, that "stagex" distro continues its life outside of the jurisdiction, at most you start treating it like contraband drugs within your jurisdiction. With LLM's anyone will be able to disengage such "default wars" in popular software, so there isn't really any border control when LLM's form a large surface area of the border.
- kube-system 2mo ago
  That’s always been the case for things distributed on the internet. It’s irrelevant in terms of evaluating one’s personal compliance with the law.
  - DoctorOetker 2mo ago
    > It’s irrelevant in terms of evaluating one’s personal compliance with the law. That's precisely what I discussed: the case where this person fully complies and ceases distribution (but the distro doesn't cease being distributed by others).
    - kube-system 2mo ago
      So what? That's how all laws work. What if I don't rob my local convenience store, but someone else does? Don't make the mistake of logically getting caught up on the idea of laws "preventing crime". They never have, and they never will. The deter crime by providing for penalties when someone breaks the law.
      - DoctorOetker 2mo ago
        But they don't deter crime when people outside of the jurisdiction, or anyone inside the jurisdiction can provide for themselves with the help of LLM's.
        kube-system 2mo ago
        Every law only applies inside of the jurisdiction where it applies. That's the nature of how political boundaries work, it has nothing to do with LLMs.
PaulDavisThe1st 2mo ago
"Distributing" is doing a lot of work here. A file hosted on foreign server might functionally be a system to "distribute" that file, but it is doubtful if a US state could prevent it from existing. They could theoretically order US ISP's to cease providing access to said file, but that's a rabbit hole I'm not sure that Illinois or any other state really wants to go down.
- kube-system 2mo ago
  Yes, most any law is primary enforced against people within the same legal jurisdiction. It matters less where the server is and more where the relevant people/organizations/assets are. Major OS providers, including major Linux distributions, are all within reasonable reach of Illinois law. It’s probably less relevant if you’re a hobbyist working on Hannah Montana Linux on the other side of the planet.

DoctorOetker 2mo ago

None of this answers the question: even if @Irvick stops distributing or participating in any way with this "stagex" distro, that "stagex" distro continues its life outside of the jurisdiction, at most you start treating it like contraband drugs within your jurisdiction. With LLM's anyone will be able to disengage such "default wars" in popular software, so there isn't really any border control when LLM's form a large surface area of the border.

kube-system 2mo ago
That’s always been the case for things distributed on the internet. It’s irrelevant in terms of evaluating one’s personal compliance with the law.
- DoctorOetker 2mo ago
  > It’s irrelevant in terms of evaluating one’s personal compliance with the law. That's precisely what I discussed: the case where this person fully complies and ceases distribution (but the distro doesn't cease being distributed by others).
  - kube-system 2mo ago
    So what? That's how all laws work. What if I don't rob my local convenience store, but someone else does? Don't make the mistake of logically getting caught up on the idea of laws "preventing crime". They never have, and they never will. The deter crime by providing for penalties when someone breaks the law.
    - DoctorOetker 2mo ago
      But they don't deter crime when people outside of the jurisdiction, or anyone inside the jurisdiction can provide for themselves with the help of LLM's.
      - kube-system 2mo ago
        Every law only applies inside of the jurisdiction where it applies. That's the nature of how political boundaries work, it has nothing to do with LLMs.

PaulDavisThe1st 2mo ago

"Distributing" is doing a lot of work here. A file hosted on foreign server might functionally be a system to "distribute" that file, but it is doubtful if a US state could prevent it from existing. They could theoretically order US ISP's to cease providing access to said file, but that's a rabbit hole I'm not sure that Illinois or any other state really wants to go down.

kube-system 2mo ago
Yes, most any law is primary enforced against people within the same legal jurisdiction. It matters less where the server is and more where the relevant people/organizations/assets are. Major OS providers, including major Linux distributions, are all within reasonable reach of Illinois law. It’s probably less relevant if you’re a hobbyist working on Hannah Montana Linux on the other side of the planet.