For me it's the R1 fiasco and their dishonesty. How anyone can continue to trust a project that brazenly mislead their users to such an extent just to cash in on the hype is beyond me.
I'm surprised that they're doing this now, with how strained international relations are. I'm sure their timing will help motivate serious non-us customers to look at linux for desktop use.
I really doubt that if it was, say, the early 90s (with millions of people yet unfamiliar to computing) and MS and Linux was in its current state of development, that the masses wouldn't have found it much more frictionless just to use linux. MS is literally running on hot air, hubris, and lock-in the likes of which I don't think many others cant match, devil incarnate not withstanding.
The analog hole. As long as human eyes can perceive the video, there will always be a way to preserve it, even if we need to fall back to analog (we wont, probably).
I assume not since i never agreed to such a terms and only learned about them yesterday. How on earth did we get to a point of hidden privacy policies on desktop open source software...
That's nice and all, but most people are worried about the other "rights" this would grant them and their partners. (What they can vs what they say they will)
> You agree to indemnify and hold Mozilla and its affiliates harmless for any liability or claim from your use of Firefox, to the extent permitted by applicable law.
Yikes. Good thing i was never informed or agreed to this nonsense.
Isn't limitation of liability part of virtually every open source license?
From MIT license:
> IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
From GPLv3 license:
> ... IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM ...
The issue is indemnification, not liability. I do not have the funds to defend Mozilla and their partners if someone decides to sue them because they don't like how i use their software.
I may be misremembering but wasn't it already possible to export go functions to js before go 1.24? I distinctly remember being able to call exported go functions in js without issues in prior. It would be really helpful if someone could explain to me how the new wasi niceties improve on what we had before (beyond supporting more types accross the ffi)?
Second question: it was possible for me to extract strings and other complex types from the wasm module's instance memory by casting pointers to integers, returning those integers to js, then using those values as an offset. If the binary representation of my types is guaranteed to be stable in go, is this method of passing pointers to js still viable for wasm modules produced when passing goos=wasip1?
They could have only leached and refrained from sharing any part of copyrighted data. If i were to commit something as risky as this, that is what i would do.
Then it would need to be determined, whether that is the case or not. Did every single machine they used have the configuration for only leeching and no seeding? The company is liable for what its employees on the job. If only one employee was also seeding ... that could be a very interesting case.
> Did every single machine they used have the configuration for only leeching and no seeding?
I would certainly assume so. It's incredibly obvious that's what you would want to do from a legal standpoint.
> If only one employee was also seeding ... that could be a very interesting case.
The torrenting wouldn't be done casually by employees acting on their own. And it's not like multiple employees are doing it simultaneously, unsupervised, on their personal computers.
This is part of an official project. They'd spin up a machine just to download the torrent, being careful to disable seeding.
This is Meta. They have lawyers involved and advising. This isn't a teenager who doesn't fully understand how torrenting works.
Did you not read the article? There are quotes from Meta employees doing exactly what you claim they wouldn't do.
> This is part of an official project. They'd spin up a machine just to download the torrent, being careful to disable seeding.
From the article:
> "Torrenting from a corporate laptop doesn’t feel right," Nikolay Bashlykov, a Meta research engineer, wrote in an April 2023 message, adding a smiley emoji. In the same message, he expressed "concern about using Meta IP addresses 'to load through torrents pirate content.'"
You also claim they would be "careful to disable seeding" but we know they did in fact seed (and anyone who uses private trackers knows they couldn't get away with leeching for very long before being kicked off):
> Meta also allegedly modified settings "so that the smallest amount of seeding possible could occur," a Meta executive in charge of project management, Michael Clark, said in a deposition.
