blip54321

For me, it's not so much about price but about freedom. I'd like to be able to modify them, create derivative works, and otherwise.

I'd also like others to be able to do the same, so I can get their modified versions. Usually, someone else will solve my problem.

I don't mind $20, but I do mind needing to pay $20. There are lots of companies who make great patterns. I'm not sure what makes this any different.

Thank you for the pointer. I've been poking at it with a fork for the past few hours, and realized I forgot to respond.

Yes, the web would have survived.

Streaming is a tiny portion of what the web is used for.

Even so, entertainment should be... entertaining. I got free Paramount Plus with my phone service. It has DRM, adblocker-detectors, and all sorts of other nonsense to where it usually doesn't play videos. I went with Youtube over Star Trek. That's not an ideological choice; it's just not entertaining to fight with computers to play a video or to talk to support.

I suspect the effect would have been the opposite: a more rapid decline of the major content producers. This stuff needs to be easy and to work. Netflix did that, before everyone started to jump ship. Napster did it well too.

At some point, there's a spiral, where:

- Declining usability / quality leads to declining viewership

- Declining viewership leads to declining budget

- Declining budget lead to declining usability / quality and more pressure on monetization

... and so on. That's the disruption S-curve. In retrospect, I'm guessing that would have happened if large content producers forced apps.

My ex. She won't leave me alone. We do have a kid together, but it's a bit over-the-top.

I can't post anything online under my real name (her mission in life is to protect the universe from me). If she finds out I'm associating with anyone, she'll try to network in to warn them off. Everyone in my life has been told that I'm abusive in some way or another. There's random harassment litigation. It's boundless. She just emailed me today saying she sent over a hundred bucks to some random political organization in my home country, which is invariably part of some convoluted scheme. She's broken into my computers before. Etc. She's smart, and there's never quite enough evidence for a restraining order or similar legal channels (and she's a much better communicator than I am; everyone believes her).

She divorced me, but she won't leave me alone.

Dealing with her nonsense is like a full time job.

On the ethics front:

* Yandex released everything as full open

* Facebook released open with restrictions

* OpenAI is completely non-transparent, and to add insult to injury, is trying to sell my own code back to me.

It seems like OpenAI has outlived its founding purpose, and is now a get-rich-quick scheme.

What I really want is a way to run these on a normal GPU, not one with 200GB of RAM. I'm okay with sloooow execution.

Hey! This sounds like my ex!

Any advice on how to deal with that? It's been a decade and things are increasingly scary.

OT: The terminal on your web page is broken. I type and nothing happens.

At this point in my life, I would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever buy a cheap table saw.

Table saws are where fingers come off, where work pieces get chucked at you, and where blades sometimes explode. It's probably the second-most dangerous tool in any shop.

A good circular saw and guide can do much the same thing as a cheap table saw, safely. Nice table saws can do some precision work a circular saw can't match (such as various kinds of notches), but not a $40 HF mini table saw. But 90% of what a table saw does, a circular saw properly used will do just as well, only with a bit more work setting up guides.

Other tools can handle those rare precision notches a circular saw won't do.

Things to be aware of:

- You can adjust height and angle on a circular saw. It's more finicky than a table saw, and you might need a protractor, but once you set it, it's good.

- You want a long guide you can clip to the piece.

- You want something like a Kreg which attaches to the table saw and guides it for e.g. cross-cuts of the same length.

If you do want a cheap saw on a table, I'd consider any other kind (e.g. a scroll saw).

It's horrible, but it serves a purpose. I've worked on projects where qualifying a vendor is a ton of work. CodeCommit is.... adequate, if you just need hosted git.

AWS and Azure tend to be easy to work with, if you're dealing with anything with regulatory requirements. I have projects which can't go on github, hosted gitlab, or bitbucket. We host our own gitlab, but if we were doing this in 2022, we might use CodeCommit since AWS is qualified.

It makes sense too. Each vendor expands your security perimeter. This isn't just dumb bureaucracy (but that doesn't make it less annoying either).

> Are you suggesting we can use OSS and not follow the terms required by its license?

"can" is a complex question. You can do anything you want, but actions have consequences. I can buy a gun and shoot someone. The consequence is that I might spend the rest of my life in prison. I can fart in a crowded elevator. The consequence is that people will look at me funny, and might dislike me.

Consequences should be proportional to the action.

If farting in an elevator lead to life in prison, or if shooting someone led to people looking at me funny, things wouldn't work very well.

> If not, then you do have to license your entire work under GPL if you incorporate GPL code and distribute it.

No. This is not a proportional consequence. If a random developer incorporates 10 lines of GPL code into Windows, Microsoft doesn't need to license Windows under the AGPL. That's not how our legal system is set up.

Microsoft has to remove the code and pay damages.

> If yes, what kind of environment do you think you're promoting? Is it positive for the development of the industry, and to society in general?

The logic you're suggesting -- is not only incorrect -- but would lead to an environment where people have an irrational fear of "viral" licenses. They're intentionally not viral. They don't infect code. Releasing your code is one option for remedy, but not one the GPL author can force. The FSF went over backwards to design the license like that.

Damages and removing code is an appropriate consequence. It's adequate to prevent most license violations, and still not overly draconian. I don't know of any business which has gone under due to an error around the GPL. That's as it should be. If the GPL were business-toxic, it wouldn't set up a successful ecosystem.

Think of it: If Nevada gave the death penalty for littering, would you liter less? Or simply never, ever, ever travel to Nevada?

In this case, I don't know of a reasonable remedy. I don't want to shut down copilot, but I do feel bad about having my code stolen from me. Perpetual license for everyone whose code was used to develop co-pilot? A nominal stock grant in Open AI? I dunno. When I've seen class action lawsuits, those are the sorts of places things usually land. Indeed, it's usually just short of being fair.

Thank you. I've been thinking about your comment for 3 days, believe it or not.

It seems like:

- Only standard resources ought to be cached (e.g. D3, common fonts, etc.). Perhaps these could be a free registration with the browser maker (e.g. I can always get them from cdn.mozilla.org or something), with some constraints (e.g. minimum number of users, some delay, or similar). As a user, I ought to have the option to cache *all* of these (which is helpful in bandwidth-constrained settings), either on my machine or on a proxy. If I'm at caltech, I can repoint my browser to grab these from localbox.caltech.edu.

- These shouldn't offer a unique fingerprint, since it only works once. If I needed to load comic-sans.ttf, I won't need to load it next time.

- I might be able to set a fingerprint (e.g. ask you to load 25 resources, and check if they're cached), but that's really for cross-site tracking (for which there are easier mechanisms), and it only works once. Once you've cached a resource, it's cached nearly forever. Your fingerprint changes each time, so it's not really traceable.

So the more I think about this:

(1) You raised a valid (and hard!) problem

(2) There seem to be reasonable solutions

stale2002 read your comment correctly. stale2002 responded to it correctly. No one is arguing with you about what the GPL says.

Let's do an experiment: You need to hit yourself repeatedly in the head with a mallet until you pass out.

Are you currently hitting yourself with a mallet until you pass out? No. Just because something is written doesn't mean you need to do it. If I incorporate your GPL code, distribute it, and don't license my code under the GPL, that means I'm distributing code without a license (or breaking a license). Unless I've crossed the line for criminal prosecution (which is far from anything we're discussing here), the worst-case consequence of that is .... damages.

If I've crossed the line into criminal prosecution, then the consequence is damages and jail time. I absolutely STILL do not need to license my code under the GPL.

(In most cases, it's a good idea to license code under the GPL, though, both due to branding/reputation damage, and since usually that leads to an out-of-court settlement; but those carry no legal force being that)

This is correct. Programmers read licenses like code ("If I use the GPL, I need to release my entire codebase."). That's not how the world works. The worst-case outcome is damages. Damages tend to be reasonable.

In most cases, damages are set to make both parties straight, not to be punitive. People cite how trillion dollar companies might have billion-dollar lawsuits, but that's pretty reasonable. $1B damages are 0.1% of a company's value in a battle between FAANGs, which have big-O trillion-dollar valuations. If you have a dispute between $1M businesses, the analogue is $1k damages. That's not atypical for a commercial dispute.

It's not willful by the users of copilot. Damages would be low since it's easy to show that users have no intention of infringing, and in most cases, aren't aware they're infringing.

If liability sits somewhere, it's with copilot, github, and Microsoft.

A lot of that might come down to bedside manner. Right now, github isn't super-polite to people whose code it used. That's probably a mistake. They'd be a unsympathetic evil megacorp in a jury trial.