Jason2357

The Internet Archive absolutely does not destroy books. They scan them the hard way with the binding still intact.

Easier to scan if you cut the binding off, and it costs money to re-bind a book you purchased for 10 cents as part of a lot.

They are buying up used books at rates that push up the cost of used books. That is enough to piss off people legitimately.

We also are fully aware they are not careful. Yes, they will occasionally shred the last few examples of a book that might have otherwise become useful in the future, and there’s no indication that they are archivists. They will eventually destroy or loose this training data and the book contents will be gone to future generations.

You have failed to understand the difference between idealism and practice. There are more companies that use Linux without ever contributing back than those that do. Those that do do so because it makes practical business sense to improve the upstream project they rely on. Any company that has decided they don’t want to share some code just builds it in a binary module, firmware, or application to sit on top.

Maybe the Canadian police, but the Canadian court did not. They convicted him with zero corroborating evidence and without carefully comparing the chat logs with his actual account.

Another way to phrase that is that companies can choose to meaningulfully contribute back, or not, with either project, and there are plenty of examples of each combination.

let’s not pretend that they’re benefiting from companies using their work.

Of course they are. Sony, Netflix and the like are major contributors to the project.

Another way to think of it is the old “you wouldn’t steal a car” commercial.

A company using BSD in their product cannot “steal” it, because we still have the BSDs. They can’t take them away, so its not stealing. It just comes down to your personality and how much you value control over what they are doing with it (No shade either way from me, if its your work)

In the end, I think it matters less than it seems. Companies can use Linux via either tivoization or proprietary software on top without contributing back, and other companies voluntarily submit patches or pay FreeBSD developers because maintaining a closed source fork is expensive.

This is the correct take. Its common across various business contexts: destroying evidence after you learn you are being investigated is big time illegal. If you destroy data, you better be able to demonstrate you did so beforehand (I.e. an expiration policy), or you don’t have it in the first place (because sensitive data doesn’t touch a given mobile device and all.). Dedicated device for travelling is the best idea.

You could also take a video of yourself wiping the device before travelling for security in case it gets stolen. (Not a lawyer disclaimer).

Really a long time coming pain point is comfortably sharing between family. I think the new workflows will be the way eventually. I plan on using it to auto add pictures with the recognised faces of family members to a “Family Photos” album as they are uploaded, and allow everything else to stay unshared by default for each user.

Yes, you are wrong. Communities limit the content they want to host. They always do. Cryptocurrency software are not people.

Community standards are not authoritarian. Good grief. You have talked yourself into a corner with that wooly thinking.

There’s no ingroup or outgroup here. Cryptocurrency isn’t people, and even cryptocurrency developers are perfectly able to host other projects there.

Community standards exist everywhere. Censorship implies the power to silence people, and in no way is Codeberg able to prevent people from sharing their project widely. They are an intentionally small platform supporting an open internet. This is no different than their long lived restriction on proprietary software. Which is again no different from Debian restricting what goes on their repos.

You can run proprietary cryptocurrency software on your own computer with both Debian and Forgejo (Codeberg’s forge software), but neither project will host it for you.

Unlike your post?

You are not restricted in your use of their software. Don’t make shit up. Go try and ask Debian to include a proprietary program in their main repo and see how far you get.

No, its a terms of use for what goes on their servers. Every open source project has that.

You are free to take Forgejo, their open source forge software, and run it on your own computer without any restrictions based on the free software license.

Codeberg runs on and develops Forgejo - a lightweight open source forge anyone can take and run themselves.

That’s a big wall of text that never gets around to supporting your claim.

What out-group is punished for their identity on Codeberg? Because a cryptocurrency developer is allowed to host other projects there.

Calling community rules about what can be hosted on their platform fascism is absurd. Every platform does that, community or commercial platforms alike. You seem to care about fascism but you are watering the term down and that is dangerous.

I am confused. Do you think cryptocurrencies are people? or do you think excluding certain kinds of projects from your community is somehow fascism?

Nobody is excluded from using codeberg based on their identity alone. Every community and internet platform has rules of what you can bring to it and what you are able to do there.

Unlike github, being excluded from codeberg hosting doesn’t really cost you anything because they don’t intend to be a walled garden.

Its great that they are not trying to be a universal replacement for Github but something more focussed to their community. That will encourage others to spin up their own Forgejo instances and that decentralisation is a feature not a bug.

They don’t need to host everything and everybody. That kills community. They are even spending money on developing activity pub federation, just like here.