Some folks on the mailing list told us that they never use binary packages

Absolutely wild. They must live in a completely different reality than I do.

Considering my personal experience with Collabora as well as their recent drama with The Document Foundation and LibreOffice, I’m surprised more didn’t go wrong.

The team states no proprietary Windows code is copied or transcribed.

But what if they have looked at it before?

I wonder how many people saw this coming.

I get the sense that a lot of people were blindsided recently, not only from large recent donations to some groups, and Linus using AI… but also OSI declaring a focus on politics.

That still doesn’t prevent a company from having the option to use the code commercially. Whether they actually want to do it or not is a separate issue.

But how is requiring explicit approval (meaning it’s not something that is typically allowed) considered “permissive”?

Can someone please tell the owner of https://codeberg.org/ethical-foss/open-slopware that NetBSD does not in fact have a “Permissive AI Policy.”

Nothing in the GPL prevents software from being used commercially… why do you claim they are unable to?

NetBSD, the only OS where typing ldconfig instantly bricks your system without warning.

RIP yt-dlp

I’d prefer a list of projects that publicly abuse their users… which ironically still includes Linux and *BSD.

At least Haiku is actually daily drivable if your hardware is supported.

It’s on the list, and they probably used Linux to write the entire site.

My point was that

That’s all fine and dandy, I just don’t agree with simultaneously saying “make it indistinguishable if you’re gonna use AI” in addition to “don’t use AI”, since as you say there is no effective difference if you can’t tell, so why should it still be disallowed? Surely we can come up with some middle ground to describe the intent of the rule better than silently implying “just don’t get caught”?

It’s getting harder to tell the difference though. Slop artists can still prompt their agent to follow the codebase’s existing style/format.

Some projects are already quietly saying “just don’t tell people it’s AI” and to make it look indistinguishable, then get on with life.

Can’t say I have any good rebuttals against that tbh.

What I’d like to see is a worldwide network of fast and reliable TURN servers that any WebRTC app can safely use.

Me and everyone else I know who are behind CGNAT/symmetrical NAT always have problems using any WebRTC app due to lack of good TURN server availability and configuration options in the specific app.

Black and white generalizations might be the worst sin of all.

No blogs… I just use it mainly for CRUD apps at work for internal or customer use so it’s many different projects that aren’t related.

I’ve been a developer for 30 years, and used django for the vast majority of the last 15 years of backend dev work. It’s familiar, comfortable and capable, and I don’t have any real major complaints. No customer has ever complained about it either.