The "soul's crushing work" they are crying about is actually not enough of work or not enough interesting work. Not the sole volume. They sound like angry kids.
You're asking people to trust you and hand their codebase/IP to your tool while showing them exactly how you treat other people's code/licenses by "deciding" to not carry forward the GPL license.
This is coming from a cofounder at github, someone who probably knows precisely what the GPL is for. Whatever the legal merits, building on a GPL3 project's complete test suite and relicensing under MIT is not acting in good faith toward the original authors. I really find it disgusting and it makes me want to avoid gitbutler entirely.
I think you're saying that you don't believe in the freedoms to use the GPL licensed test suite for certain purposes which are explicitly allowed by the GPL.
You don't get to choose a license and then add extra terms to it when you don't feel like it's up to scratch. That's something explicitly not allowed by the GPL license.
> Where does the GPL say you have the freedom to relicense code or derivatives under MIT by fiat?
The first part of this sentence (where in the GPL) is unreached if the second part of it is unmet (relicense code or derivatives) which I contend it likely is. You're begging the question.
However:
> The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work
earlier:
> A “covered work” means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.
It's that element that would be difficult to prove "work based on the Program"
Asking an LLM "here's a thing, rewrite it in Rust" is pretty clearly creating either a derivative work or a different form of the same work, just like asking a transpiler would.
There's no evidence that "here's a thing, rewrite it in Rust" is the technique Scott used here.
"here's a test suite, write code in rust that makes that suite pass" is reasonably supported by the article. That would likely not be a derivative work.
Ew. So it tells the LLM where the git source is for the thing they’re duplicating, but I don’t see instructions saying not to read or copy those files or algorithms.
I could have missed them. I didn’t read everything. I did some quick searches.
But the fact they’re not obvious is kind of troubling. Or that they didn’t just copy the tests and documentation for the LLM and not the source to prevent it from looking would hurt any case they had for clean-room privileges in my eyes, ignoring my other comment with concerns about using the tests at all.
If we assume an u licensed or MIT licensed test suite, an LLM could develop from that and documentation and you’d get something you could license MIT.
IMO, IANAL, etc.
And we’ll ignore the question of what the fact the LLM has certainly seen the git code during training means.
But the test suite would have to stay under the original license. And if you use a GPL test suite as they kernel to develop a program from can you license it non-GPL? I’d question that personally. Same acronyms above apply.
This is the exact thing I'm not sure about. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48470397 where I posit a simpler question: if a `test_sum()` function is copyrighted, does writing a `sum(a, b)` function infringe on the copyright of the software product that `test_sum()` is a part of. I'd say no. There's another part of the GPL that applies here:
> A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.
So assuming that sum(a, b) is non-infringing and not combined to form a larger program (i.e. the tests aren't compiled into the grit code), then the GPL explicitly doesn't apply to this use
test_sum is assumedly relatively trivial. So as a lay person I’d expect some sort of obviousness test to apply. Like so much of the stuff in the Google/Oracle lawsuit.
But if you take all the individual tests used to test git as a whole, that seems far more unique. Seems like at that point you’re really having to duplicate the actual git internals, and that seems like it should be covered.
> test_sum is assumedly relatively trivial. So as a lay person I’d expect some sort of obviousness test to apply. Like so much of the stuff in the Google/Oracle lawsuit.
Feel free to extrapolate to the threshold where it's not and at that point apply.
> you’re really having to duplicate the actual git internals
Copyright covers the expression, not the method. So the Rust function:
This is what critical reading is for. It requires you examining your own assumptions as much as the text's. If you don't engage with something or someone because of your own bias or assumptions, that is also willful ignorance; you also might end up never updating your prior stance when new information emerges.
There is a financial argument and capability argument.
In this case, he doesn't make the claim one follows from the other.
There's no shortage of sources of information. I'll exercise "critical reading" with sources I consider trustworthy to begin with. I've no time to engage with difficult analysis from people who are not worth the effort. You wouldn't engage with every lunacy you read on a tabloid, right? similar principle
Fair enough. I won't debate preferences or how you choose to spend your time. I think one of the merits of his articles is that he surveys and gathers sources that others can engage with. Even if we admit he is biased, that exercise (his writing) alone is valuable because one can contradict or reassess his claims.
It's great that someone penned their experience and path towards self-awareness in a way that helps others achieve the same. Or, at least for me, it put words on an uneasy feeling I hadn't yet fully materialized. I too would be saddened if the flattening of our shared human experiences accelerated even more.
It's very difficult to do business in Western Europe without Whatsapp. I have probably asked more than 60 people to switch to Signal and the social burden it introduces (i.e. asking a new acquaintance to install a new app) can have negative signalling effects (e.g. you don't adapt, create more work, why do you care so much about privacy, etc.)
I personally abhore Facebook (and IG,Whatsapp) and don't want to use any of them; I have uninstalled/reinstalled Whatsapp many times. Out of practical concern, I now only use Whatsapp in business settings where it would create tension and create social awkwardness not to. But I dislike the fact that I do.
Nobody, and I do mean nobody, realizes that using Whatsapp by default (which everyone accepts) synchronizes their entire contacts list to Meta. It's a golden trove of valuable data for an ad targeting company.
People don't realize that there is so much that can be inferred about you from your contacts. Whether you have kids, which schools they go to, and similar personal information.
All of this is not even on the radar and people reduce privacy to "whether someone listens in on my calls or conversations" and tend to brush it off, because they honestly don't care about that part.
Signal doesn't make it easier by refusing to allow encrypted iCloud backups for so many years (which means people lose data when they lose their phones!) and recently introducing a subscription backup service instead of allowing me to do an encrypted iCloud backup. It's hard to explain to people that they should use an inferior product just because of "privacy".
I've seen more interest in Telegram among my contacts in recent years and less of it in Signal. I managed to grab my partner, sister and my friend to use Signal but they all three still use facebook along with whatsapp and doesn't seem they want to leave it.
The recent yet another revival of Gadu Gadu pass by without much fanfare. For those unfamiliar: GG was created by single guy upon ICQ idea of UIN's and quickly become the default messenger in Poland some 20 years ago - even gov't used it at some point. But it lost its position to Skype, Whatsapp and Viber. I admire somewhat the dedication this new company has in restoring our "homemade" network. But it's way too late: new generation of people who's mainly familiar with big corporations services have grown up and GG has nothing that'd made it replace these.
Yep, same in South Africa. I still haven't accepted those T's & C's from a few years ago so can't chat with most businesses. In some cases there is no other option, so I just... don't use that company.
On the other hand, I've convinced a lot of my friends to get Signal. I'm the only person that they speak to on Signal, but that's fine ;)
We work on helping people move to Signal from WhatsApp. It'll be easier once they have a Communities feature, as WhatsApp is very far ahead there.
The main advice we got is that although you need to migrate individuals, the main focus should be on migrating channels. If you have a family group chat, that's the target. Tell people about how Meta spies on them, etc, and then support everyone in the channel to individually set up Signal if necessary.
All my close family now use Signal after me and a sibling pushed for this. That's 30+ persons. The network is growing too, since all children and new partners join in 1:1 and groups.
We like having two apps: WA for friends, Signal for family. There are only few reasons to mix the two.
Okay, what are the reasons? It's difficult to see how Meta is in any way more trustworthy than the country which Telegram is from. I trust TG secret chats much more than Whatsapp's supposed e2e.
It's a standard chat application, people are also using Facebook, WhatsApp, etc for illegal/immoral discussions. I've been using it as my main chat client for more than 10y and have never used or felt the need to use the community channels, it's just a great messenger.
Doing illegal stuff in public Telegram channels is extremely stupid, they aren't encrypted, you're pretty much giving your information to law enforcement (I know Telegram is often blocking sharing info on their users to law enforcement, but you can be sure agencies are monitoring your telegram channel discussions).
The Russophile comment is pretty frustrating given Telegram is the most commonly used messenger in Ukraine and lots of Eastern Europe...
Why not settle on a chat which actually uses e2e encryption by default though?
There's truth to the Russophile comment though, Telegram is regularly used by GRU and the FSB to recruit people to commit acts of vandalism and terror and is pretty well documented. It's also commonly used to spread disinformation and conspiracy theories. My mum has fallen for several of these via Telegram.
Sorry for your mum. FWIW you have the same content on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit.
Telegram has a larger Russian speaking audience because of the founder, who created VK in Russia. But that doesn’t make it Russophile. Ukraine is organizing pretty much all their resistance on Telegram…
The public channels are where the trash content is, I’ve never used them myself, you have to explicitly look for that feature, it’s not like they are shown in the chat interface directly.
> Why not settle on a chat which actually uses e2e encryption by default though?
Because I care more about the quality of user experience, and Telegram has been awesome to use since I first tried it
All my close family now use Signal after me and a sibling pushed for this. That's 30+ persons. The network is growing too, since all children and new partners join in 1:1 and groups.
Progress, in any meaningful sense, has to mean we are more capable of sustaining ourselves than we were before. Burning down the commons to train and serve a mythomaniac chatbot is not that. The consumer markets that still worked will shrink, and some will die.
1. Democratization is centralization. We will resist the potential of this technology to consolidate power in the hands of the few, by consolidating it in the hands of us, who are not few but correct.
2. Empowrment is compliance. We believe AGI can empower everyone to achieve the goals we have determined are worth achieving.
3. Prosperity is scarcity. We want a future where everyone can have an excellent life, which will require new economic models because the old ones will no longer function, for reasons unrelated to us.
4.Resilience is dependence. AGI will introduce new risks, which only AGI can solve, which only we can build.
5. Adaptability is revisionism. We continue to believe the only way to meet the challenges of an unpredictable future is to be prepared to update our positions, our charter, our nonprofit status, our safety commitments, our board, our cofounders, and our prior statements, all of which were operative at the time and are now inoperative and were never said.
6. Please don't look at our financials. They are horrible and we are hoping to sucker people into an IPO before all of this implodes. The least your Grandma can do for us is give us 2% of her S&P 500 portfolio so we can exit before it goes to zero. This is AGI after all.
reply