Login
You're viewing the mastodon.coffee public feed.

Replies

  • mccmcc@mastodon.social
    Aug 15, 2026, 12:54 AM

    What's really interesting about this is that slop model makers do not honor copyright retaliation or even *license withdrawal* clauses in normal works. For example, when Stack Overflow sold my posts to a slop vendor, violating the CC-BY-SA license Stack Overflow licenses are licensed under, I was not allowed to remove my posts from the site (and banned when I tried to take steps in that direction), although the CC-BY-SA license has a "terminate on violation" clause.

    💬 5🔄 13⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 1⭐ 1
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • /dev/urandomrnd@toot.cat
    Aug 15, 2026, 11:09 AM

    @mcc i imagine that the actual effect of SO's terms of service is more like

    "you agree to irrevocably license your content to us and allow unlimited use of it, and we then license it as CC-BY-SA to other visitors of the website"

    but either way, this smells of the kind of loophole-wrangling behavior that needs a skilled lawyer to figure out

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • mccmcc@mastodon.social
    Aug 15, 2026, 11:12 AM

    @rnd I mean, the basic nature of being a tech corporation is laws work however you want them to work, and if that's ever not true for even a second, you go and buy a new government.

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • mccmcc@mastodon.social
    Aug 15, 2026, 11:13 AM

    @rnd This said, when SO bans you for trying to remove content, *they* cite CC as the reason why you can't.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Knut 🏳️‍🌈 🇳🇴🧸praetor@mstdn.social
    Aug 15, 2026, 6:55 PM

    @mcc What I'm kinda finding out, locally anyone with research, is...oddly licenses aren't part of their model. If I give a canned model code, and say "You may not use this under xxx model" it ignores it. If I actually RAG the license and tell it it may not use this, then it won't. I don't think it was trained on all these licenses, which isn't all that shocking. It will obey them, if they know about it. But out of the box, they don't.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Rasterraster@retro-gaiden.com
    Aug 15, 2026, 1:47 AM

    @mcc They are became such from quite a time when they let Red Hat and their corporate mindset take over quite a lot of critical stuff in the linux ecosystem.
    Nowday they just took off the hat.

    Perhaps the twists was that GPL was made to keep off the corporate to control the rights on the source, with the side effect to have made the GLP itself a corporate entity. 😐

    💬 0🔄 1⭐ 0
  • TockTock@corteximplant.com
    Aug 15, 2026, 2:09 AM

    @mcc Thanks for calling attention to this.

    Holy shit, Linux is going to the wolves, isn't it?

    💬 0🔄 2⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Gilgwathgilgwath@social.tchncs.de
    Aug 15, 2026, 6:53 AM

    @mcc @linuxfoundation never lifted a finger to protect FOSS projects from scrapping or the bots DOSing their sites. They stopped caring about FOSS while ago. These days it's just about money. They are just a sock puppet with all the hands of all the big corpos up their ... I don't trust them and I think it they should be disbanded. The foundation has outlived it's usefulness.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • KerplunkKerplunk@mastodon.scot
    Aug 15, 2026, 7:05 AM

    @mcc

    I am now willing to describe the Linux Foundation as "a force for evil in the world"

    What do you expect, it is dominatet by us big tech companys, IBM at the forefront....

    It is all about embrace and destroy.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Mike Andersonmspcommentary@mastodon.online
    Aug 15, 2026, 7:46 AM

    @mcc the Linux Foundation, whose platinum members include Microsoft, Oracle and Meta, could never be a force for evil.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Holgerhsmolin@bawue.social
    Aug 15, 2026, 8:25 AM

    @mcc like in many institutions originally founded for benefit of the common, there is a need to withstand attempts to be taken over by funding members (what a difference an 'o' makes). Which requires idealist leaders, not managers educated in monetary business.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 1
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • mccmcc@mastodon.social
    Aug 15, 2026, 8:29 PM

    @arctic @usernameswift @SRAZKVT Governance remains independent but I don't know what happens when a project with independent governance takes such a opposite position on such a major issue as LLMs from its parent organization

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Andrew Zonenbergazonenberg@ioc.exchange
    Aug 15, 2026, 11:31 AM

    @mcc So wait, if I allege the model infringes my copyright no employer can legally force me to use it?

    That sounds like a win-win :P

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Andrew Zonenbergazonenberg@ioc.exchange
    Aug 15, 2026, 11:40 AM

    @mcc I would love to see someone with commits in e.g. the linux kernel make this claim to their corporate general counsel arguing that they should not be forced to use the slop machine because it would violate the license

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • ⁂ L. Rhodeslrhodes@merveilles.town
    Aug 15, 2026, 12:29 PM

    @mcc If operating systems eventually move toward extensive and unavoidable LLM integration for even basic use — which certainly seems to be some companies' vision for the technology — a clause like this could end up bring equivalent to a de facto ban on defending your copyright if you want or need to use certain OS distributions. Given how often we're forced to use other people's deployments, or simply don't know what OS we're using, that ends up being a nightmare standard for licensing.

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • Woozle Hypertwinwoozle@toot.cat
    Aug 15, 2026, 2:20 PM

    @mcc Then I feel less iffy about fediblocking them this morning.

    So... silverliningyay? :blobcatupsidedown:

    💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • mccmcc@mastodon.social
    Aug 16, 2026, 4:07 AM

    @xeroxed I've known satanists, they're just libertarians who know what "energy work" is

    💬 1🔄 0⭐ 0
  • 💬 0🔄 0⭐ 0