[-] bitfucker@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago

xz is a bit silly too. Someone maintain it alone and look what almost happened. He got peer pressured to almost hands the project to malicious actor (which probably also by social engineering)

[-] bitfucker@programming.dev 1 points 2 months ago

So I can know what the article is about even when blocked by the site administrator. Residential IP blocks are very prone to that because it is shared by bad actors. And I am not connecting to VPN just to read one or two article

[-] bitfucker@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago

No, I bet it is some AI firm. nVidia is currently milking most of them dry and I would not be surprised if it is either Microsoft or Meta

[-] bitfucker@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago

Yeah, hence why I said that technically the license can be revoked. Enforcing that is another matter. Without going into the weeds, we need to rethink how to handle it. At minimum, we need to make sure that if the license is revoked not from breaking ToS, the Copyright/IP holder must refund the purchase too. The copyright/ip holder still has the right to their creation but the consumer is also protected via those refund. It is indeed not bulletproof but whether you like it or not, copyright/ip protection is needed to some extent.

[-] bitfucker@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago

On the basis of technicality, it will depend very wildly on the ToC of said intellectual property. As you said, GOG just distributes the installer and that is it, the IP holder can technically revoke your/GOG license if that is in the ToC somewhere.

[-] bitfucker@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago

Now that you mention 3.5%, yeah I can see how 30% is a bit much

[-] bitfucker@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago

Enforcing payment comes to mind without resorting to in-app purchase or any account creation. A lot of desktop software is a good example of those. Sure, you can still have cracks and whatnot, but then again, that's not the point. Might as well ask what is the point of Denuvo. That is a whole other discussion.

[-] bitfucker@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago

Yes, that's my point. Android "doesn't" have to use Google Play Store, but it is convenient. Other store fronts exist like F-droid and many vendor specific one. Google just provide the DRM mechanism like steam does provide DRM via steamworks

[-] bitfucker@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago

Well, ease of use I suppose. Just look at us capable of using basically anything as an energy source. Imagine a machine that is not finicky on how they got their energy. The problem for any such machine will always be efficiency. You cannot do more work than the energy that you put in a system. Such machines will need a stomach that is capable of processing "food" at the same/greater speed that it is spending its energy. Not to mention we usually use machine for heavy, energy intensive task, so I doubt such stomach will be useful for any meaningful machine.

[-] bitfucker@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago

Do one but with bear. It is trending right now!

[-] bitfucker@programming.dev 1 points 2 years ago

I think the 1% is so that a company didn't shy away from open source completely. I don't know how it will work for example if the company is using 5 of this license. Will they pay 5% or 1%? Probably 1%, but I didn't see it addressed in the article. Anyway, since the cost is small for a big company, but can be huge in number for an individual, I think it is fair.

Also, what if a contributor is acting on behalf of a company? Would the company receive the payment or the individual contributor? There is just so much to cover.

view more: ‹ prev next ›

bitfucker

0 post score
0 comment score
joined 2 years ago