lindenksv85

6 ms·

1.
by lindenksv85 5y ago
I didn’t mean you specifically. I think the ethical conversation is more interesting but I also think that people will feel different if, say, the Linux Foundation releases its own version of copilot and it’s not just one company reaping th
2.
by lindenksv85 5y ago
All of these terms of service have an assignment provision that allows the provider to assign the agreement to an acquirer. So the license you gave to GitHub moves to Microsoft (though here the license likely remains with GitHub because the
3.
by lindenksv85 5y ago
The “services” is that which is provided by GitHub. “GitHub” is defined to include all of its affiliates, including Microsoft.
4.
by lindenksv85 5y ago
Sort of. DMCA protects service providers against copyright infringement claims related to stuff uploaded to their services by third parties. So long as they adhere to DMCA requests, they’re not violating copyright law themselves.
5.
by lindenksv85 5y ago
OSS license obligations mostly kick in upon distribution, hence this is a pivotal concept in this context. It’s also important because of the language in the TOS that says the code won’t be used outside the service. The stuff related to str
6.
by lindenksv85 5y ago
That was a problem before copilot though. And copyright holders have and will continue to have the right to send DMCA take-down notices if they like.
7.
by lindenksv85 5y ago
I think it’s important to recognize that most ML models will not be built in top of copyleft material. It will mostly use data that we as users have voluntarily provided to someone at some point and to which that platform now claims ownersh
8.
by lindenksv85 5y ago
If you are putting up code on GitHub to which you don’t have all the rights you’re actually in violation of their TOS and you are violating the rights of other copyright holders. I understand this is common and may not violate community nor
9.
by lindenksv85 5y ago
They technically don’t distribute any code. They show it to you in a hosted environment. It’s the user that causes a distribution. They “provide it as part of the service.”
10.
by lindenksv85 6y ago
RH is subject to a ton of federal regulations that social media isn’t. They legally cannot cut off one set off investors in order to enrich another. It’s a felony. We are not discussing free speech here.
11.
by lindenksv85 6y ago
I find it highly unlikely that they didn’t have conversations beforehand. It’s also really black and white - they were proud of their lack of moderation and said it publicly. It’s not like there was a misunderstanding. Plus an org like Parl
12.
by lindenksv85 6y ago
Because there is a difference between 1% of your content being illegal and you actively working o it and like 50% of your content being illegal and you telling everyone profusely you refuse to moderate?
13.
by lindenksv85 6y ago
Either the baker gets to decide whether to make a gay wedding cake or they don’t. Which one is it??
14.
by lindenksv85 6y ago
It’s not coordination if multiple companies actually agree on reality. I would think it would be worse if some companies said this were fine and other didn’t - THAT would imply that someone was being treated unfairly maybe. This is just a u
15.
by lindenksv85 6y ago
To be fair they wanted to do that because they saw Trump as a would-be dictator unwilling to leave power peacefully and deadest on using the government to punish his enemies and line his own pockets. They did THAT to avoid THIS. Being right
16.
by lindenksv85 6y ago
There is a big difference between “controversial” and a place where people are actively planning criminal activity. It’s not close. No bank, for example, could continue serving a known crime org. They themselves would be charged if they did
17.
by lindenksv85 6y ago
If so, that would be a crime and those people should have been arrested. So what? I love the conservative view that if any liberal anywhere did anything bad, then it’s a get out of jail card for them to also do that bad thing. No dude. A cr
18.
by lindenksv85 6y ago
Sure but AWS isn’t run by robots (yet!). It’s run by people who understand context and intent. I also very seriously doubt that Parler was turned off without any notice. If a company was getting abused like that, I think AWS would try to he
19.
by lindenksv85 6y ago
I think it’s unfortunate that people are taking statistics (or anecdotes) from this period to support or not support WFH. At this point in time, it would be rather audacious for anyone to claim that productivity is more tied to the location
20.
by lindenksv85 6y ago
Being highly infectious is one thing but a virus’s deadliness is another. Something can have a really high infectiousness rate but not be very deadly, like common cold. The infectiousness they are citing her is the infectiousness that exist
21.
by lindenksv85 10y ago
There is definitely a set of people for whom reducing poverty is not profitable. Unfortunately in SF you see this coming from a number of non profit affordable housing developers as well as tenants rights advocates who are often the loudest
22.
by lindenksv85 11y ago
I think that such a provision would be even more unpalatable to the business world than copy left provisions that risk the user having to release their product under the same OSS license. I don't see any proprietary software company ev