tabular

The purpose of copyleft is to ensure the freedoms and restrictions made by a license are enforced by copies/forks/derivatives.

Best to talk to people interested in contributing to see what they would think?

I'm unsure that using complicated algebra to regurgitate parts of people's works is different from just copying it. Perhaps you could say a human brain learning how to code is just regurgitating the code it's had as an input before, but intuition says directly copying is somehow different.

I add copyleft licenses to code to ensure the code cannot be legally copied into proprietary software, for moral beliefs. If the output of a LLM was free software and copyleft (as would be the input) then perhaps that would be fine. Github probably has some complicated legalese that says by uploading it you permit them to use it for LLMs - I'd want that to be legally voided.

Most guys can't be attracted to me. Even if I like a guy I act as if I'm talking to a gay woman (no potential for my attraction to be receptive) until I know they like men. After that.. I see don't know.

thanks!

Is there any merit to the claim OBS is using an end-of-life (EOL) runtime and that this is a very bad thing for security?

Oh, my bad.

Money to live is an important point but open source is still preferable to proprietary as any company shenanigans can be found, removed and the new version shared legally.

A universal basic income would allow software authors to more easily work on less profitable projects.

The harm this time is indeed less, but the potential for harm is still the same as Meta. There is always the temptation to use power over your SAS users for your own gain. Maybe one day they're a bigger company who think 'you know what, maybe it's better for the company that our users not swear'. Either way lets hope for libre, self-hosted alternatives.

~~May be a good idea to include that update/correction in your prior post.~~

If only people would do that, but I bet that advice is just like telling an overweight person to stop eating.

Amazon will come into your house to take your digital copies of books you paid for (e.g. when they did that with 1984). No reason to think they wouldn't take physical books after they've violated your digital sovereignty - it is only a question of if that were to ever become a viable option for them.

A law to prevent spreading false history may sound good but I fear it's not a good solution. In bad hands the law can instead can attack history to promote a false one. If an inconvenient truth happens to looks like the dribble a Holocaust denier would say then good hands may punish an otherwise good person, promoting a different incorrect history.

I'm convinced I cannot trust anyone to judge - for me - what I should be able to read/hear. There must be better ways to defeat Nazism ideology.