I'm honestly disappointed that this post got so much attention with such a dubious source. The article doesn't even link to a press release, as far as I can tell.
It gives both the full name of fungus and the name of a researcher plus his affiliation. More information than you often get fore more 'reputable' sources. Criticizing something only on the basis of the source, while the actual content is completely fine, is peak cargo cult information literacy.
That depends. Odds are good some GPL code slipped in somewhere, so using the GPL for the whole thing is an option in that case. And sure you can derive proprietary code from GPL code, so long as you don't publish binaries.
> Writing for the Court, Breyer said that while it is difficult to apply traditional copyright concepts in the context of software programming, Google copied “only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program.”
> A world where Oracle was allowed to enforce a copyright claim, Breyer added, “would risk harm to the public” because it would establish Oracle as a new gatekeeper for software code others wanted to use.
The fair use tests that were used in the SCOTUS case, I believe, would fall on the side of "developers using GPT or Copilot to generate code do not generate substantial parts of the code and are below the amount of work needed to show sufficient creativity in writing it."
If that is not a copyright violation and considered to be fair use, then the code generated by GPT or Copilot likely also falls in the the same bucket.
I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's my reading of the tea leaves.
I suppose if there were backers who would issue loans instead of investing in equity, the workers could form a cooperative. I don't think that would fully eliminate the risk of them getting fired (by each other), but perhaps it would be a start?
I think the person you're replying to was referring to the "clean hands doctrine". In common law, one of the Maxims of Equity--or principles by which courts try to rule--is that "he who comes into equity must come with clean hands."
An incredibly simplified overview of this doctrine is that a person cannot claim equitable relief (that is, win a civil suit on the basis of equity) in a situation where the person has also acted wrongly or unfaithfully. A common example is that a landlord may not pursue eviction of a tenant if the landlord has violated the tenant's rights.
The clean hands doctrine is very nebulous and since I'm not a lawyer I don't claim to know all of the twists and turns. In my reading, the doctrine does not mean someone must be "completely pure" in an area in order to prevail. Generally there has to be a relationship between the thing the person wishes to sue for or defend against and their own actions. So while Disney might be abusing copyright in other areas, the doctrine (probably?) would not stop them from claiming copyright privilege in unrelated suits, such as against someone selling derivative works.
I don't know, but I think GNUstep deserves more appreciation and use.
Modern hardware is drastically more powerful than what NeXT had to work with, yet it often bogs down just trying to implement a usable and responsive GUI.
If Lemmy's voting system is incompatible with Mastodon & Pleroma, then does that also mean that reshares and Favorites from Mastodon or Pleroma won't count as upvotes in Lemmy?
