"Some prefer to keep their code secret, usually because the code is ugly, messy, and unappealing."Copyrights cover code. This has gone on for nearly half a century and it is not likely to change (if it does, it will be condemned as "plagiarism" -- which is exactly what Microsoft seeks to achieve with GitHub/Copilot). There is no need for any patents on algorithms. Ask almost any software developer, either proprietary oR not, and the answer will be the same. Coders don't want patents on their code. Copyrights are sufficient. For some, reciprocity in changes (copyleft) is sought and for others it's about attribution. Some prefer to keep their code secret, usually because the code is ugly, messy, and unappealing. Nobody would wish to reuse it anyhow.
Useful alternatives to Microsoft GitHub:
"The following year, in 2013, Edward Snowden unleashed lots of NSA leaks onto the media and -- by extension -- onto the world."So let's put in very simple terms what the issue we deal with here entails: Let's Encrypt (LE, controlled by the so-called 'Linux' Foundation, i.e. monopolies and raiders of the Commons) is not security but mostly another increase/increment to the existing (very steep compared to Gemini/Gopher) entry barrier. If security was the true goal, it would be implemented differently. At the moment it compels people everywhere in the world, even non-technical folks, to rely on misleading Web browsers that impose US hegemony (scaring users if not outright obstructing/blocking them for disobedience), it makes self-hosting extra hard (in turn begetting further centralisation, i.e. censorship and surveillance against everyone), and for people who blog less than once every 3 months it makes no sense to rotate certificates every 3 month or pay annual fees to GoDaddy et al. Reliance on GoDaddy in in itself a security and safety risk, as GoDaddy can go for years without telling staff and clients that it suffered a serious security breach. GoDaddy isn't the only one. Outsourcing "trust" is generally "risky business". LE is the wrong way to solve a real problem, or a solution to a problem not Internet users were having but rich censors and media magnates had. It also makes hosting more expensive (support-related tickets ultimately increase).
"Let's Encrypt was a good step but only one step in a direction," an associate explains today. "Unfortunately Mozilla and Google have headed that off by preventing self-signed certificates."
Because it's "free" to be in the CAs everyone must do this now, right? 'Democratisation' is the fasionable buzzword (even crackers can get a free LE certificate and seem "legit"). No excuses to not support this 'trust cartel', which will one day be weaponised for political censorship of Web sites (through mass revocations; some people already viciously push to do this to Russian sites; it would be a slippery slope breeding distrust and suspicion of CAs' true motivation/purpose).
Maybe we'll elaborate some other day...
"Now they pretend that people need not search for authoritative Web sites and reputable pages on the Web, and all this because of the alleged sophistication of lousy chatbots -- neither new nor innovative but Microsoft pays the media for a massive hype campaign during mass layoffs."Buzzwords need to be replaced with substance. In the case of the EPO, we already see how "HEY HI" ("AI") gets misused to grant loads of European software patents. And to borrow the above example of GitHub/Copilot, we see how mass violation of the GPL (copyleft) is facilitated, rendering compliance/enforcement virtually impossible. This is intentional. Outside the domain of code, some developers and Web sites seek to strip both attribution and licensing from various creative works, ranging from videos/multimedia to art and literature. There are many legal cases already (more than we care to count) dealing with this 'pandemic' of plagriarism-spun-as-HEY-HI (the OSI even took bribes from Microsoft to help promote this malicious spin). Here is the source code aspect, "but the same applies to all the works it is used to rip off," an associate explains. "Each violation is a violation and due a large fine independently of any other violations."
Call a spade "spade" and call plagiarism what it is, not "HEY HI". It's already shoehorned into other agendas, software patents being just one example (as noted before). Now they pretend that people need not search for authoritative Web sites and reputable pages on the Web, and all this because of the alleged sophistication of lousy chatbots -- neither new nor innovative but Microsoft pays the media for a massive hype campaign during mass layoffs. "LOOK OVA' THERE!"
"The policymakers are in the pockets of several cabals of companies (different sectors), so one way to bypass their demands is to take the Net out of the hands of any particular companies."There is an "ongoing net neutrality" disinformation campaign, an associate says, taking stock of "news" sites (conflict of interest!) helping the cable companies (often the same companies that own these reporters). They're embracing the disingenuous and misleading labels for opposition to net neutrality and these are lousy attempts at double-billing (if not triple-billing). The articles latch onto hate towards G.A.F.A.M. and frame that as a fight wherein those who support net neutrality are in fact defending Microsoft and Google (nothing could be further from the truth). There are several ongoing attempts to decentralise the Net (IPFS is one notable effort) and we thankfully see more activity in Gemini this week -- some of which praises GNUnet as well.
The policymakers are in the pockets of several cabals of companies (different sectors), so one way to bypass their demands is to take the Net out of the hands of any particular companies. The water supplier does not regulate how you use the water that you consume, right? it doesn't even know how you use it.
The topology of the Net needs to change. It ought to be more peer-to-peer-like. The media likes to conflate such stuff with fake ('cryptocurrrency') coins and "dark web" (crime), but don't fall for these bogus narratives from any hostile media company that doesn't disclose its rather obvious conflict of interest. ⬆