Which is weird but I get it. I wanted to force myself to learn selinux with fedora and I get it I’m just bad at it. I shoudnt have a headless machine running all the time without some protections, but I suppose I could do well enough by having ip2d and bittorrent in a VM and local only stuff in containers. its not great but it should be good enough.

Does not support the filesystem I want. Does not support wolf.

That still doesn’t answer the question, why does anyone choose anything other than GPL? I’m having a hard time expressing my question the way it is reading in my head. Damn you, English.

Ok so I wouldn’t be wrong calling it “stupid” then. Thank you

I guess the use of the legal angle is mostly so that once the courts decide whether AI training without permission is stealing or not, there is a chance that LLM companies will have to declare all the produced code under GPL/conflicting licences and will be bankrupt overnight as they will need to retrain from scratch with allowed sources.

I generally agree with you that the projects could be more accessible. I also believe that these projects exist to do one thing, which is create a solution to a problem and share it with others.

As for your learning and explaining what the various bash command chains do: Explaining bash commands is actually one of the few things I would say AI (especially local/self-hosted LLMs) are REALLY good at.

There are lots of obscure options for every bash command, and having used a lot of LLMs for work, most LLM models can use and explain these bash commands, piping, and exit conditions quite well.

Not everyone wants to use AI, which I can understand. But, if you’re going to use AI, use it to break down more complex things and explain them to you.

Only if they are enforced and if you don't have lawyers to enforce them then it doesn't matter because a well funded opponent will bleed you dry arguing about it.

CachyOS e.g. has its own repositories with patched libraries, kernels, apps etc.

Especially github projects with instructions like:

On Debian/Ubuntu, install from my PPA

sudo add-apt-repository ppa:totally/well-maintained

or on Hannah Montana Linux, build with

python2 mk-dependencies.py
fartify-next build --forceit 

AFAIK, that's correct, it considers serving the software as a a service as equivalent to distributing it under the GPL, so as soon as you have 1 remote user, you have to agree to distribute the code under request.

Agpl I believe is similar to gpl but includes server sided code. Correct me if I'm wrong

You mean you have to read the "Install Instructions" section?

I'll provide my perspective from a very strong advocate of FOSS and GPL specifically.

Most code I write I release under GPL because I want companies to think twice before attempting to profit off of my code. AGPL specifically requires companies to release any modifications if they are publicly released.

I will occasionally release some code under MIT because the code is so simple and stupid, I don't care enough if people lift it. A few spreadsheet formulas fall into this category or a dockerfile that has maybe 4 lines in it.

it turns out you can use all the GPL code you want at work now, just run it through an AI! license laundering for all!

In some atomic distributions like Vanilla OS and SteamOS you have two mostly (AFAIK) identical root partitions. Let's say that you boot partition A. You install a system update, and now partition B contains the updated OS. Your bootloader also remembers which partition is up-to-date and boots off of that one next time. Now, you boot with partition B. There is a system update and the latest version of the OS is installed to partition A. It now repeats as you might expect.

The goal is to have both versions readily available so that if an update introduces problems you can always continue to use the old one. This is not something you are meant to think about or tinker with. If you need more customization, I think you might wanna consider a more traditional distro.

Tentatively interesting, but probably not.

The memory limits would be too low and I don’t trust chromium much.

Conclusion, Americans are a bunch of idiots.

If it's your own code, you can dual license it and still use it without releasing the source.

Yeah, they need to up their efficiency with more AI. 😄

People do it because they think being able to use code at work without dealing with legal issues more important than protecting the software from exploitation.

It's kinda classic American capitalist freedom thinking.

American: Freedom = no regulations Others: Freedom has to be protected by regulations

The fact is that MIT license allow you to get the code legally, you don't stole anything. GPL only force you to publish derivate works under the same license if you publish your project (ok, that's not all, I know).

But I doubt that a simple change of license is enough to stop AI tools which don't seems to bother with this "technicalities". It can be a starting point to sue someone, if you have the money, but nothing more.

Ah yes, Schroedinger’s clean room.

As long as you don’t look at the training process it’s a clean rewrite.

BSD should stop using cuck licenses. That would make this a non-issue for them.

JavaScript is ass, so I also appreciate the plain text copy.