deleted by creator

It’s more that compositors (picom, xcompmgr) and window managers are extremely complex, and adding that feature in could have much larger impacts than just the functionality itself, e.g. security context implications, task scheduling, rendering pipeline issues, etc. Wayland actually combines the compositor and WM, so it’s more readily extensible than X11.

State-level bills have heretofore only required OSes to ask a user if they are of majority age. A federal bill is likely (based on the groups backing and who proposed it) to require OSes to validate (i.e. have users prove, not just assert) their ages.

Depending on what mechanisms are mandated, and who they target punishment at, it could lock 99% of users (who are not willing or capable to use means to bypass this) into tying all their actions online to a government-run database.

It’s not enough that means to bypass it exist; the government shouldn’t be able to mandate this kind of control, and shouldn’t be propagating the expectation that this behavior and level of control is normal or acceptable.

“Power isn’t given, it’s taken.” - Malcolm xAI

This is something I see my partner’s high school students having to deal with now: the suspicion that competence or intelligence must indicate AI use. It feels like when dumb film writers or directors make non-MC character unbelievably dumb to make the MC look smart (cough BBC Sherlock cough), but applied to real life.

If you are saying that you are making long comments without reading the post

I didn’t say that. I read the post, but did not click through to the other post from December to realize it was part of a pattern.

I’m not really interested in getting into an argument around license choice

That’s fine, you are not beholden to respond to me.

Unfortunately, yes.

Facebook v Power Ventures is probably the strongest anti-scraping ruling, because it held that a simple CAPTCHA is sufficient to qualify as “bypassing technical measures” so as to qualify as hacking under CFAA.

YouTube has a number of technical controls to prevent downloading, and it’s always been considered iffy to mass-download YT vids because all the downloader tools (usually) incorporate some kind of means to bypass their protection schemes.

Perhaps you should have titled the post “AI Code Hollowing Out Copyleft Ecosystem”, then, unless you’re intentionally trying to conflate Open Source with Copyleft (you are, based on your other blog posts). But I remember seeing your post about the “social contract” of OSS last December, and you are in fact exactly who my comment is about:

Copyleft is a reactionary movement from people who turned into the beast they hated in trying to fight it. “Permissive” licenses are FOSS. Copyleft is certainly maybe OSS, but it’s not “Free” (as in either “libre” or “gratis”) if some other person can mandate both that you do something, and what you do. If usage of something is contingent on payment (including payment via feel-good attribution), it’s not free.

I’ll add here: FOSS is also not about some one-sided “covenant” where a creator believes the users of said freely-given software owe them something (money, gratitude, or even just ‘reciprocity’ and attribution). If you’re in OSS for the fuzzy feeling you get when someone forks your repo, or the conviction that OSS contribs are intrinsically good in some nebulous way, it’s no wonder you’re hung up on seeing a transactional return on your labor instead of just knowing it’s out there maybe helping someone, somewhere.

This is a fast path to open source irrelevancy, since the US copyright office has deemed LLM outputs to be uncopyrightable.

Open source != copyrighted. Public domain source code is also open source.

I hate this trend I see of the FOSS movement retreating from the foundational principle that it started on: Free Sharing of Software.

Not shareware, not ‘libre but not gratis’, not ‘buy me a coffee to get access to the code on my patreon’, not ‘free to look at but not to use as source code’: free period. Libre and gratis.

These non-lawyers traipsing in to make claims about the effect of AI on open source licensing are giving me big “I release my code but only if I can 1) get paid for it and 2) control who and how it’s used” vibes. That’s what’s ‘hollowing-out’ open source.

value leaks out of the project

What value? Value to whom? The value of source code is what it does, i.e. the program it compiles or is interpreted into. That doesn’t change by someone else using it differently than you. Google taking Linux and spinning off Android doesn’t “hurt” Linux. It doesn’t decrease the ‘value’. There’s no universal counter out there that says, “this GPLv2 attribution appears more than someone else’s, so therefore this project is more valuable”, that is being eroded if a company goes and uses it without reprinting the license notice as well. OSS licenses have never prevented that.

I said it before the last time FOSS came up, and I’ll say it again:

FOSS is about propagating software to as many people as possible, to help as many people as possible. It’s not about creating legal barriers to diminish the power of corporations; making tools available to people that are better and cheaper will do that naturally (and you were never going to beat the corpo lawyers anyways trying to enforce licenses).

If your zeal to prevent corporations from ever misusing FOSS leads you to remove some aspect of it (free, open, or source), then you’ve cut off your nose to spite your face.

Honestly, this depends entirely on person and circumstance. There are people I’ve parted ways with as nigh-enemies that are now close friends after time and distance gave us perspective. Economics and life situations and all the stressors that come and go over time have a bigger effect on relationships than people give them credit for. “Exes are exes for a reason” only holds relevance if those reasons are unchanged.

I have the KZ ZS10 Pros, and they stay in my ear great. The KZ earplugs come with different connectors, and I got the standard 2-pin ones so I could choose the wires I want (I like braided cables).

foot… Searching for it

euro office… searching for it

Whether you like the SEO-driving search engine providers or not, they are still the way that most people find things on the internet, and they prioritize Github results. When you’re not searching for “it”, but just searching them by describing things like it, (of which there are many, mostly on Github), it serves your interest to ‘O’ for the ‘SEs’ by putting it somewhere that will get prioritized higher.

If the goal is digital sovereignty for europe

Sovereignty is exercised and evidenced by a state’s ability to enforce the laws they have created. Microsoft operates within Europe. As long as Europe can enforce their laws upon Microsoft (as they can and do now), that relationship is still an exercise of European sovereignty.

Back to my first comment in the thread, “sovereignty != isolation”. Cutting yourself off from external groups does not make you “more sovereign” or something. If Europe cannot enforce their laws upon foreign business entities operating in their jurisdictions, and thus choose to prioritize Europe-headquartered businesses, that would be evidence of far weaker sovereign control of their jurisdiction.

Now, if it’s just a matter of prioritizing supporting European businesses, (call it, say, “Europe First”, or maybe “Make Europe Gr…” oh wait) that’s fine for them to do, and supporting any smaller business or organization over a large one is almost always preferable, but that isn’t and shouldn’t be about the perception of sovereignty or about nationalism, it should be about fighting back against corporate power by not rewarding these de facto monopolies and political meddlers and manipulators with your business.

But once again, that’s not within the scope (or ability) of a simple Office-alike application.

unless you search for it or a repo that lives on it explicitly

Skill issue indeed. Reading comprehension, specifically.

Let me spell it out:

1. You won’t find Codeberg in searches unless you know it exists already, or already know of a specific tool that is hosted there.
2. Euro-Office creators probably want people to discover their tool as much as possible.
3. Hosting the tool on a platform that doesn’t come up in searches due to its relative obscurity is therefore a bad idea.
4. Euro-Office creators chose not to do that.

the vapid useless SEO-optimized articles that you find

“This year will be the year of the Linux desktop Codeberg!”

I find code on codeberg all the time.

You won’t find codeberg unless you search for it or a repo that lives on it explicitly.

Search in Google, DDG, Kagi, or whatever search engine you like for some generic variant of “where to find source code/ foss tools/ etc”, and show me the combo that returns you Codeberg.

Unlike Github, which is

a well-known place to find code

Codeberg is not, and most people have not heard of it, and won’t find it organically.

Codeberg != isolation

I wasn’t saying that codeberg was isolation, I’m saying that you don’t have to extract yourself from all non-European tools and dependencies in order to maintain sovereignty.

Codeberg is big and popular enough that it shows up in web search results

Not from what I can see.

search for “zig source code”

Sure, if you search for something you are explicitly aware is on Codeberg, you’ll find… links to Codeberg.

But if you search for “source code repositories”, “where to find open source software”, “where to find source code for software”, you get #1 Github, then Sourceforge, then other random ones like Google Code Repos.

Even from the projects you listed, I’ve only heard of Forgejo (and that’s only because I was explicitly searching for self-hosted code repo software), and Librewolf (Alpine is on their own Gitlab instance). Also, listing the software that the website itself is built on as evidence of big projects hosting there is a little obama-giving-himself-a-medal-meme-y.

I’m not saying Codeberg is bad, or that people shouldn’t use it, but it’s not well-known and is not something to shame people for not using.

sovereignty != isolation

Microsoft sucks, but what exactly is the threat you’re trying to mitigate by not putting their Office suite on GH? Microsoft deciding to disappear it or take control of it one day? MS does a ton of business in Europe, so they have a lot more to risk than PR history for tools that the devs would all still have on their machines (and thus could migrate at any time to another code repo).

There’s not a readily-available European alternative to Github, and no, Codeberg is not one, because the value of GH is not just hosting code, it’s being a well-known place to find code. If you want a “European alternative” to GH, you’d first need to create an internationally-famous, known-by-all-developers platform. But that’s not “in scope” for their EU-Office tool.

Damages for what? They’re not making money if it’s free. It’s fine if it’s copied, the only time there would be damages is if they’d lost money or access.

In FOSS, contributing in the open is the principle.

Yeah, the protocols that corporations and governments rely on were (mostly) not their own creations, and they cannot feasibly change the underlying TCP/IP stack itself, which has quite a lot of ‘grey space’ baked into it in terms of controlling traffic. Even China, whose government could much more realistically create another alternative model with a totally different protocols (a la DTNs) and mandate domestic equipment use them (enabling them to block the current suite of protocols), just haven’t even bothered attempting that route because of how huge a lift it would be.

The biggest danger is probably national boundary isolation, which countries have moved further and further towards. This is not actually all that rare, and countries have a lot more ability to control cross-border network traffic than people probably realize (most people probably envision something akin to The Great Firewall, but that is explicitly about still facilitating north/south traffic at-scale).

Totally discrete ‘mini internets’ via e.g. mesh networks or directional wireless P2P bridges is totally doable, but generally not a way to avoid government scrutiny as it’s very easy to detect. If we ever get to a point where you’re not subscribing to an ISP for internet, but to ‘Disney Network’, with just their services (and add-on bundles for other services!), it’ll be in conjunction with regulatory capture to help them ‘protect’ against pirate (as in, un-controlled by government, not as in copyrights) networks.

You are creating your cool streaming platform in your bedroom. Nobody is stopping you, but if you succeed, if you get the signal out, if you are being noticed, the large platform with loads of cash can incorporate your specific innovations simply by throwing compute and capital at the problem. They can generate a variation of your innovation every few days, eventually they will be able to absorb your uniqueness. It’s just cash, and they have more of it than you.

So the safest bet again is to stay silent, or at least under the radar. Best bet is to not disrupt - succeed at all … ?

Except that ‘success’ in this interpretation seems to assume money, which the big company will beat you at obtaining. Success can just be about a FOSS version of a tool being out there for anyone who wants it, and no company is going to pay the AI costs to build tools they immediate MIT-license (and even if they do, there are then TWO new pieces of FOSS software!), so they may be able to beat you in creating a commodified product, but they aren’t and won’t and arguably intrinsically can’t beat you in bettering someone’s life by having a tool they didn’t before, for free.

We will again build and innovate in private, hide, not share knowledge, mistakes, ideas.

This is a sad reaction to capitalism capitalism-ing. You can’t beat the profit machine by trying to make your profit in the cracks it can’t see, you beat it by giving the thing it wants to profit off of away for free.

The vibrant public ecosystem that created all the innovation and moved it around the world will decline - the forums, the blogs, the “here’s how I built this” will move to local, private spaces.

I highly doubt this. I’ve seen no such shift in any tech space around me. If anything, I actually noticed that every Con I regularly attend has mentioned in their RFP emails that they are being flooded with proposed talks, so people should submit early before they fill up. If private spaces are also growing, that’s great!

I know this is ostensibly an article about Technology, but it’s also an article about Resistance and Praxis, and frankly I think a lot of people run to models of competitive resistance instead of exploring disarming or evasive resistance. You can’t beat Capitalism at commodifying something, but you can prevent Capitalism from commodifying something by removing the characteristics (like cost and scarcity and control) that make something a commodity.

Code is one of the few things that can actually be freely and un-limitedly distributed and re-distributed, which makes it uniquely resistant to commodification, but only if the person making the code is not themself trying to commodify it.

There’s a reason that Linux has only gained ground over time.

I don’t think that’s what the parents or kids want, but I do think that’ll be what happens, yes.

The general rule on this instance is to use the link headline, to avoid people editorializing them. A lot of times sites will have a different in-article headline (or even change it post-publication).