Arthur Besse
cultural reviewer and dabbler in stylistic premonitions
- 111 Posts
- 319 Comments
They just need to say they are using the archive for AI training data. Then it’s legal.
5·5 days agolook at their responses in the .ml cross-post,
that post is now deleted, but you can see their modlog here
29·9 days agoto the many people reporting this post
21·10 days agoThanks. Sorry to see my assumption was correct; that does indeed sound a lot like when they were called OSSO two decades ago.
Notably absent from the list of things they might open source soon is their current “Lipstick” UI, the graphical shell itself.
All of the stuff they plan to open source are things I didn’t even figure out were still closed from my 5-10 minutes of research before writing my previous comments. It is difficult to estimate the number (do you know how?) of other small closed components which they can dribble out over the next years to maintain users’ false hope that they will one day have an actually-open-source operating system.
we’ll see though
my advice is: don’t hold your breath.
Sorry if this sounds bitter, but it’s because I am - I naively believed that OSSO might actually ship a free OS one day (to be fair they didn’t say they would either, but they helped us believe that they might… in effect saying “we’ll see” for years while releasing bits here and there) and it was frustrating to realize that it was never a real possibility.
Got a link about it? Have they just said they plan to make it “more” open, or do they actually plan to make the full OS actually be free software, like AOSP, pmOS, or most of the other things on, eg, the pinephone software page? (note that sailfish is also listed there, but iiuc its UI and some other bits remain closed-source).
It is the direct descendant of Nokia’s OSSO (“Open Source Software Operations”) division, both in terms of people and software.
Unfortunately they’ve been saying on and off that they plan to slowly open source more of it literally since they first started… which was [checks calendar] now 20 years ago. So, I lost my optimism that they would ever finish opening it quite a while ago.
💀
and we’ll open source the hardware and software interface specs so anyone can design, 3D-print, or produce their own modules
oh cool, people can make open source “other half” add-ons for the proprietary “first half” of the phone itself 🙄
i wonder what percentage of jolla customers still mistakenly believe SailfishOS to be open source? (most of the ones i’ve met did…)
1 reason it’s wrong to me: https://nosystemd.org/
Under “Notable bugs and security issues” there is a big list of issues which were all (afaict) fixed many years ago.
There have been reasonable philosophical objections to systemd, some of which are still relevant, and as that site shows there are still many distros without it, but for the vast majority of desktop users who want something that JustWorks… using a mainstream distro with systemd is the way to go.
This blog post from pmOS covers some of the pain of trying to use KDE or GNOME without it.
I can’t really imagine a benefit to
--autoremoveexcept for keeping old packages a bit longer before removing them.Eg, if you run
apt --update --autoremove upgrade -yonce a day you’ll keep your prior-to-currently-running-version kernel packages a day longer than if you ranautoremoveimmediately after each upgrade.To make things more confusing: the new-ish
apt full-upgradecommand seems to remove most of whatapt autoremovewants to… but not quite everything. 🤷
see also –autoremove
21·13 days agoWould be easier to know how old a kernel release is without looking it up.
I concur, but it would be much easier to make the major version the current year (as many projects do, and Linux should imo) rather than the whole project’s age at the time of a release.
Linux is only 34 years old, btw.
Oh come on, you don’t really believe that Nazi shit, do you?
2·17 days agoAI code will likely get to the point where it is just a higher level language
contradictory to existing laws (eg section 230).
Section 230 is US law; this article is about the EU and GDPR.
Operating in multiple countries often requires dealing with contradictory laws.
But yeah, in this case it also seems unfeasible. As the article says:
There is simply no way to comply with the law under this ruling.
In such a world, the only options are to ignore it, shut down EU operations, or geoblock the EU entirely. I assume most platforms will simply ignore it—and hope that enforcement will be selective enough that they won’t face the full force of this ruling. But that’s a hell of a way to run the internet, where companies just cross their fingers and hope they don’t get picked for an enforcement action that could destroy them.
Not really. The decision only states that a service that allows to publish advertisements with personal information must review these
Did you post this after reading only the beginning of the article? Because, around the middle of it, the author foresees and responds to your comment:
Some people have said that this ruling isn’t so bad, because the ruling is about advertisements and because it’s talking about “sensitive personal data.” But it’s difficult to see how either of those things limit this ruling at all.
There’s nothing inherently in the law or the ruling that limits its conclusions to “advertisements.” The same underlying factors would apply to any third party content on any website that is subject to the GDPR.
As for the “sensitive personal data” part, that makes little difference because sites will have to scan all content before anything is posted to guarantee no “sensitive personal data” is included and then accurately determine what a court might later deem to be such sensitive personal data. That means it’s highly likely that any website that tries to comply under this ruling will block a ton of content on the off chance that maybe that content will be deemed sensitive.
Here are some relevant parts of what the court actually wrote:
67 In the present case, it is apparent from the order for reference that Russmedia publishes advertisements on its online marketplace for its own commercial purposes. In that regard, the general terms and conditions of use of that marketplace give Russmedia considerable freedom to exploit the information published on that marketplace. In particular, according to the information provided by the referring court, Russmedia reserves the right to use published content, distribute it, transmit it, reproduce it, modify it, translate it, transfer it to partners and remove it at any time, without the need for any ‘valid’ reason for so doing. Russmedia therefore publishes the personal data contained in the advertisements not on behalf of the user advertisers, or not solely on their behalf, but processes and can exploit those data for its own advertising and commercial purposes.
68 Consequently, it must be held that Russmedia exerted influence, for its own purposes, over the publication on the internet of the personal data of the applicant in the main proceedings and therefore participated in the determination of the purposes of that publication and thus of the processing at issue.
It seems to me that the fact that the nature of the content was itself advertising is not the relevant thing here, but rather the fact that the website had a commercial purpose is. So, maybe this will only apply to websites operated for commercial purposes? 🤔
(I am not a lawyer…)
A company that publishes ads for sexual services without getting confirmation of consent is a risk for the society and this business model should not be allowed.
Is there something I missed which indicates that the sexual nature of the advertisement was a factor in the court’s decision?
DebConf. Not to be confused with debconf.