bear

If they push AGPL, then the code is still open

My understanding is that they are only applying AGPL to the current version and going forward all versions will no longer be AGPL. However if they have accepted contributions that were not covered by an agreement to transfer copyright, this is illegal without obtaining explicit approval from all contributors.

Copyleft with commercial restrictions is basically the whole FSF vibe.

No, I don't think you understand the free software movement at all. It has never been strictly noncommercial. Open source has never been a vow of poverty.

Honestly for people like yourself this is exactly what you want for privacy software. [...] This is much ado about nothing; previously the code was unlicensed on GitHub which is much more restrictive than AGPL.

BY-NC-SA is considered non-free by everybody, including the Free Software Foundation, the Open Source Initiative, and even Creative Commons themselves.

https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/freeworks/
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
https://opensource.org/licenses/

Furthermore, Creative Commons strongly warns against using these licenses for software for this very reason.

https://creativecommons.org/faq/#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_for_software.3F

"Can I apply a Creative Commons license to software?"

"We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses listed as free by the Free Software Foundation and listed as “open source” by the Open Source Initiative. "

"Unlike software-specific licenses, CC licenses do not contain specific terms about the distribution of source code, which is often important to ensuring the free reuse and modifiability of software. Many software licenses also address patent rights, which are important to software but may not be applicable to other copyrightable works. Additionally, our licenses are currently not compatible with the major software licenses, so it would be difficult to integrate CC-licensed work with other free software. Existing software licenses were designed specifically for use with software and offer a similar set of rights to the Creative Commons licenses."

I hate snaps mainly because the server is proprietary. Everything else wrong is negotiable or solvanle, but that's a nonstarter.

The server isn't open source, so Canonical has the sole ability to control snap distribution. It's also yet another example of Canonical's "Not Invented Here" syndrome, where they constantly reinvent things so they can control it instead of working with the rest of the open source community. They also trick you into using snaps; for example if you explicitly tell it to use apt to install Firefox, it'll install it as a snap anyways.

Historically they performed really poorly as well, but my understanding is that they've largely fixed that issue.

Making of a big deal about it is what takes away effort from meaningful action. Nobody is taking time out of their day over this issue but you. This is silly.

It's inclusive of both pedophiles and hebephiles - that is, prepubescent vs. pubescent children

https://youtu.be/nu6C2KL_S9o

?

Are you just anti-acronym in general?

so you stubbornly disregard anything I said in response.

I'm actually curious, what did I stubbornly disregard? Because I can list things you stubbornly refused to engage with, but I'm not aware of any point of yours that I didn't respond to. If I did, I will happily do so now.

It's not pedantic to expect the law to hold the same standard to "sexual gesticulation" as it did to "premises", but it's clear you suddenly lost all that enthusiasm you had before to actually defend the law on its merits. I'm just sad that the conversation about the actual text of the law couldn't even make it further than the first question.

Have a good day.

So you're just done engaging with what I say and are now deflecting, got it. I was correct when I said that the clarity of the law was never important to you and wouldn't affect your support of it.

We don't believe that at all, we believe privacy is a human right.

That's just a different way to phrase what I said about defending the good side of encryption.

Offline uncensored LLMs already exist, and will perpetually exist

I didn't say they don't exist, I said that the help and harm aren't inseparable like with encryption.

We don't defend tools doing harm, we acknowledge it.

"My point is that if you want to have a consistent view point, you need to acknowledge and defend the harmful sides."

If you want to walk it back, fine, but don't pretend like you didn't say it.

What the fuck is this "you should defend harm" bullshit, did you hit your head during an entry level philosophy class or something?

The reason we defend encryption even though it can be used for harm is because breaking it means you can't use it for good, and that's far worse. We don't defend the harm it can do in and of itself; why the hell would we? We defend it in spite of the harm because the good greatly outweighs the harm and they cannot be separated. The same isn't true for LLMs.

This isn't pedantic. Have you even read the law that you keep demanding everybody else read? The law makes reference to a strict definition for the word "premises", but it's pedantic to expect one for "sexual gesticulation"? They did that on purpose.

It's very easy to admit being wrong about the law being clearly defined, that you just didn't think of every way it can be abused. However, I don't believe you actually care about it being clearly defined at all. That's why you're deflecting now and suddenly acting all disinterested. You've been caught and now you're defending your ego.

So I have to ask again; why the act? What was the purpose of all this? Simply be honest about your beliefs and stop with all this smokescreen nonsense. You don't have to act like a weasel if you just say what you really believe.