There'll be an #NGI breakout session during OW2con'24 for NGI beneficiaries. It's a chance to meet up with fellow contributors to the open internet, share a presentation about your project and to explore new collaboration possibilities.
Throughout the conference there'll be an NGI Community corner for projects to provide demos & meet open source professionals
OW2con'24 is held 11-12, June in Paris-Châtillon. Registration is free but mandatory.
@NGIZero That sounds great, but unfortunately with no #CodeOfConduct, no #HealthPolicy and with a lineup of 4 white male keynote speakers it doesn't appear to be the kind of safe or inclusive space that I'd be comfortable in.
Kees: The condition we need to catch is the case of unexpected wrap-around.
Linus: If you go "wrap-around is wrong" as some kind of general; rule, I'm going to ignore you, and I'm going to tell people to ignore you, and refuse any idiotic patches that are the result of such idiotic rules.
Kees: I would phrase the rule as "ambiguous intent of wrap-around is wrong".
Linus: Any kind of mindless "this can wrap around" is inexcusable.
Having made it painfully clear you are not talking about UB or objecting to intentional overflow, to then be repeatedly clubbed with that one thing no matter how many times you correct the record...
It's wilful. There's no way your meaning was missed.
@hyc@kees If Linus had made his point as you just did, sticking to the technical points, nothing. There's a valid debate to have.
But he didn't.
Linus SHOUTED IN ALL CAPS, described such proposals as "idiotic", implying that Kees is therefore an idiot, and kept referring to a point that Kees has never made.
All Kees is proposing is clarifying programmer intent to prevent a known, frequent and recurring class of errors found in the kernel. He has never said that wraparound is "bad".
@revk Thanks for sharing that. You'll find many of us on the #LongCovid hashtag with similar lingering symptoms, even without a stroke. It's way more common than generally acknowledged.
Hopefully you'll make a full recovery, but you may find it comes and goes. After more than 4 years I'm trying to accept this is probably permanent for me.
Can relate to the typing issues, and spelling. Like a bad autocorrect I can't switch off. Coding with brain fog is a special pleasure I'm still adapting to.
Looks like a storm later, which almost certainly means a power cut.
Time to upgrade my kernel then, if I'm going to have to reboot.
My main laptop hasn't had a battery since last year, and my knackered UPS is currently telling me it can provide me with 0 minutes of uptime (when I've finished compiling, I might get back to 3 minutes).
It's more natural to think of the posts holding up the roof of our hangar, but they also hold it down. It's this last function that was being tested by the winds last weekend. One of the posts was lifting so alarmingly in each gust that I thought I'd better tie it down. The strap was just about lifting me while I lashed it down. Was about to start looking for my ruby slippers.
"The output from an LLM is a derivative work of the data used to train the LLM.
If we fail to recognise this, or are unable to uphold this in law, copyright (and copyleft on which it depends) is dead. Copyright will still be used against us by corporations, but its utility to FOSS to preserve freedom is gone."
@mishari "We show an adversary can extract gigabytes of training data from open-source language models like Pythia or GPT-Neo, semi-open models like LLaMA or Falcon, and closed models like ChatGPT"
@webmink@onepict Using the code to train LLMs that then are used generate derived works with the licenses chiselled off is a violation the spirit (and arguably the law) of FOSS licensing.
@interpeer@webmink@onepict Whether you use a "permissive" license or copyleft you are required to retain the copyright notices when creating a derived work. Creating a derived work (regardless of whether through using an LLM) and distributing it without the original copyright notice is a violation of the terms of the license. Otherwise you're basically saying all FOSS licenses are effectively public domain.
@interpeer@webmink@onepict Amusingly, Software Heritage has also fed the "open letter to RMS" into their LLM corpus. That repository does not contain any licensing information at all. So it appears that regardless of which license (or lack thereof) a repo is under they will archive it and use it for creating derived works.
@aral I'm not involved with #Fedora, but presumably there's a release process that is written somewhere.
This sounds like a bug in not just the software, but also the release process. Perhaps the way to tackle the software bug is to fix the release process so that alarm bells ring before next release.
Grabbing prerelease images and testing and raising bugs in the run up to release might provoke some action - if you have the time to do that. someone clearly needs to!