upcoming EU AI Act that regulates open source systems differently, creating an urgent need for practical openness assessment

So when they say “openness” they do put it in the context of open source rather accessibility.

Because FOSS shouldn’t add burdens. You publish your work and let everyone else use it. That shouldn’t add extra obligations on you. Usually, you’d also write some docs - after all, without them nobody will know how to use your program, so why bother publishing - but it shouldn’t be an obligation. Make it easy for people to open up their code without this attaching strings.

Documentation is nice, but it’s kind of different thing that open source: a program can be open and undocumented, or closed but well documented - and I don’t see why we’d want it different for models.

A bunch of these columns are outright absurd TBH, to the extend I’m not sure the author really knows what FOSS is about. What’s open API access even supposed to be - API access is closed by definition.

Also there has never been a requirement that open source software needs to be documented - and for good reason - so I’m not a fan of the documentation column as well.

How do you declaratively apply the configuration? Is that a feature of Kvaesitso?

I see there an access violation…

Well, Columbus himself didn’t conquer much. He established a few settlement, but the real conquering was done by others.

More accurate comparison would be:

Describe Hernan Cortez in one word.

(GPT-4) Conquistador

Let’s be fair, it’s actually about all those people whose password is “password”. But it is annoying to those who use 15-character random strings for passwords.

That’s not very deep. Closer to plain old logistic regression, really.

Huh. I guess that’s what happens when Google actually prefer that you download the add-y version, because they also make money from the ads.

You can technically can your proprietary software “free” too. But that’s not what the term means. And nether does “open source”.

That’s not the accepted usage of the term, though. Rather, open source = free software.

And while I do like the term free software better, I don’t think trying to start war on which term to use would help anything.

The reasoning given by GrayJay was that they don’t want a bunch of malware / ad filled clones running around, and I think that’s reasonable justification?

It’s not.

1. That just hasn’t been a problem for open source projects. I’ve been using almost only open source since like 2007, and I’ve never seen or heard about an ad-filled clone of some of them. Even if they are a thing, they’ve never reached me as a user.
2. If someone did want to distribute malware clones, they won’t be stopped by a license restriction.

I didn’t come across any restrictions imposed on an end user to modify the app for their own needs or redistribution

It’s by default that you can’t redistribute modified versions. You need explicit permission to do so. Furthermore, that license is revocable. So let’s say you invest a lot of time into making modifications - at any point, they can revoke the license, and you suddenly find yourself forbidden from distributing your modified version, too/

If/when Grayjay is transitioned to FOSS, I imagine it’ll be difficult for the community to maintain it due to the complexity…

That’s not really relevant. There’s no requirement in open source on how the projects are to be maintained.

the last thing someone like that would want on a personal project is loads of strangers contributing, bad actors ripping it off trying to make a quick buck, or even worse redistributing it with malware.

It’s up to him whether he accepts strangers contributing. That has nothing to do with whether it’s open source. If he didn’t want contributions, he could disallow any pull requests on an open source software - or conversely, if there are people willing to contribute to a non-open-source project, there’s theoretically nothing stopping that. Redistributing it with malware is not really a problem open-source projects have, and malware writers wouldn’t care for the license anyway.

The only thing is would be the somewhat relevant would be making a quick buck part, but that’s only been a problem for people using MIT/BSD license.

Finally, I’ll never understand why people would want to name software after dental string…

Never tried magit, but it doesn’t matter. It couldn’t possibly be good enough to be worth using an inferior editor.

The ease with which I can only commit separate hunks with lazygit has ensured I use it for commits, too. And once I’ve opened it to do the commit, I may as well also press P.

Learning git is very easy. For example, to do it on Debain, one simply needs to run, sudo apt install lazygit

At the early stages of the legislative process, every time this was brought up people kept saying, “it’s fine, they’ve excluded non-commercial open source”. Now it seems there are problems with what might count as “commercial”.

But at this stage of the process, the EU legislators can’t make arbitrary amendments. There are two versions of the text now - one proposed by the Parliament, and one by the Council - and the final text must be a compromise between those two. It can still be rejected by Parliament, but that would be rejecting it in whole (and they won’t do that).

Actually, reporting issues is not considered a bad practice in open source. If the corporation expects the dev to work for free, that’s a problem. But I found the original bug report, and it’s just a normal report. It doesn’t read entitled, doesn’t demand “Fix it NOW!!!”, simply explains an issue.

Then there’s CC BY-NC-SA (non-commercial use only, copyleft)and

Not exactly. For example, you can’t make the whole thing, GPL snippet included, available under MIT. You can only license your own contribution however you want (in addition to GPL).