Quantum Hardening Cryptographic Protocols: https://invidio.us/watch?v=Bjal5aE33iY
And before anyone asks: yes, quantum computers exist. It's an open question whether we can build one powerful to be a threat, but regardless it's better to be safe & design crypto they can't break.
GitHub - rochus-keller/OberonSystem: Modified version of the original from http://www.projectoberon.com/ for use with the Oberon IDE https://github.com/rochus-keller/OberonSystem
Which one?
https://www.nospec.com this is from a designer/artist perspective, but the literal same thing applies to hackathons, and you should refuse to have anything to do with them if possible.
‘It’s just a pigeon,’ said the girl. ‘Let it die.’
The boy lifted it with gentle hands. It was too weak to struggle. He could feel its heartbeat against his fingertips. ‘It just needs help, that’s all.’
He nursed it day and night. Warmed it by a lamp, cleaned its wounds. Fed it from his hand. Every day it grew stronger. And larger.
After a week, it was the size of a cat. A month, a dog. It gazed at him with adoring eyes. And one day, it would carry him into the sky.
Block links to #Facebook & friends.
Lock people into the #Web (or the #gophersphere or...)
Practical Procedural Generation For Everybody: https://invidio.us/watch?v=WumyfLEa6bU
(Haven't actually watched, I'm distracted with other links. But sounds interesting!)
@fakefred@mastodon.technology
Uhm... sounds familiar...
You are ignoring time into your reasoning.
If you code for a small élite (which is totally fine, even if such élite has a cardinality of one), the probability that what you build is going to attract economical and political interest is actually low.
In such case, public domain is as good as copyleft, since you only care about the few people you are coding for and, if a venture capital turn your tool into an oppressive proprietary spyware for everybody else, your small élite can still use the public domain software you coded.
BUT, if you are hoping to free more than a couple of persons, if you aim for a wider reach, releasing code in the public domain is exactly working for free for those you want to beat.
You are taking the risks.
You are doing the hard part of Research and Development.
And what's worse, you are building a new well defined market for them to enter.
If you build something that, even for a small period of time, have a chance to succeed, by releasing as public domain you are just doing your enemies a favour.
Now, as a workaround, #copyleft is NOT perfect. In particular, #GNU licenses have too many loop holes.
BUT, if you don't protect your work so that its evolutions will stay in the #commons, you are renouncing to any hope for your principles to spread.
A #community is defined by the rules that protect what the members held in #common from their own individual egoisms.
So if you look at things into an historical perspective, you should see that putting work into the public domain is always to support oppressors in the long run.
While I'm happy to look something more effective than GNU licenses, a a strong Copyleft can slow down a bit the Embrace, Extend and Extinguish strategy that is the immune system of #Capitalism.
@walruslifestyle@octodon.social
@xj9 @walruslifestyle@octodon.social
That's what they want you to think.
But afaik #GAFAM didn't do a clean room implementation of #Linux, for example.
Also suggesting to not share ideas means suggesting to not do anything innovative or subversive, since once you distribute something innovative you ARE sharing ideas.
#Copyleft isn't perfect but makes it harder to run EEE tactics.
But throwing subversive code to the public domain is just a way to do R&D for big corps for free.
The second #Nextcloud #Podcast is out - listen to our latest episode discussing Design and much more with @jancborchardt !
https://nextcloud.com/blog/nextcloud-podcast-part-ii-lets-talk-about-design/
Do others feel that the *vast* majority of the exciting open source work these days happens outside the U.S.? (In a larger proportion than you'd expect based on where commercial software is written, I mean).
At first, I thought it was just that #rust had a non-US tilt due to Mozilla's involvement.
But the more I look around, the more it seems like (almost) all the exciting Foss projects are in Europe – with the notable exception of https://sr.ht/ and a few others.
Agree? Disagree?
While this is the smartest objection to my usual comparison of free software and free speech, I think you are missing an important detail.
#FreeSoftware is a work-aroud to defeat unjust #Copyright laws.
If I take #Microsoft #Windows code (or executables, it doesn't change much), modify it and publicily share the result under any form, I'm going to be criminalised and actually indicted for copyright infridgement.
Now for a #hacker, programming is a form of expression just like writing is for everybody else.
International copyright laws and agreements is basically statal censorship for economical (thus ideological and political) gain.
Now, one might argue that #hackers are a tiny minority that do not deserve such right to expression and it have to sacrify it for the other mainstream programmers.
And it's surely true that the #OpenSource people did their best to take Free Software from hackers to turn it into an exploitative, ethically washed, #marketing tool.
And I agree that, because of that, we are reaching the limits of what a #copyleft licence, however strong, can protect.
For example, thanks to the progress of #hardware, we can all see that all free software copyleft forgot the right (duty?) to #SelfHosting.
But free software still stands as a tool to create a protected zone of free programming expression in a hostil environment ruled by (corporate friendly) copyright law.
Since copyright infrigement can lead hackers to statal jail, free software IS free speech.