Hi Ian, Ludovic.
Ludovic Courtès writes:
> Hi Ian,
>
> Ian Eure skribis:
>
>> Summarizing the situation:
>>
>> - SHF has an opaque, difficult, and undocumented process for
>> handling name changes. I’s like to stress again that this is
>> *not* strictly a transgender issue (though it
Hi Ian,
Ian Eure skribis:
> Summarizing the situation:
>
> - SHF has an opaque, difficult, and undocumented process for
> handling name changes. I’s like to stress again that this is
> *not* strictly a transgender issue (though it likely affects them
> more, or in worse/different ways)
On 2024-05-01 08:29:29 -0700, Ian Eure wrote:
> If Guix is going to continue to facilitate license violations, I will have no
> choice but to remove my software from it to defend them.
Purely hypothetically, if it would come to this, how would you go about it?
Assuming the software is under free
Hello Guixers,
It’s been another week with no response or movement on this. I’m
disappointed that this situation seems to be getting treated so
lightly. Adhering to the terms of software licenses is
fundamental to the operation of the free software ecosystem; there
is no software freedom
Hello,
I’m following up on this since discussion since it’s been a month
and I haven’t heard any updates.
Summarizing the situation:
- SHF has an opaque, difficult, and undocumented process for
handling name changes. I’s like to stress again that this is
*not* strictly a transgender
On 2024-03-18 15:14, Andreas Enge wrote:
Am Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 04:33:49PM +0200 schrieb MSavoritias:
Actually gitlab already is facing something like that and they are
doing
what was proposed elsewhere: mapping of UUIDs to display names
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/20960
> IMHO This is a quiet egocentric point of view.
> What are you implying with the "loud" minority here?
Hi,
"Quiet" is a funny typo here.
Also, "peace on Earth and goodwill toward [all]." [1]
Please
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74ocbvwam7c
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024, at 11:11 AM, MSavoritias wrote:
> On 3/21/24 17:08, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:
>> […]
>> I don't understand how using petnames, uuids or even a re:claimID
>> identity (see below) could solve the problem with "rewriting history" in
>> case a person wishes to change his or her
Hartmut Goebel writes:
> Am 21.03.24 um 07:12 schrieb MSavoritias:
>> Specifically the social rules that we support trans people and we
>> want to include them. Any person really that want to change their
>> name at some point for some reason.
>
> Interestingly you are asking the right to get
Giovanni Biscuolo writes:
> [...]
> pinoaffe writes:
>> - should examine possible workarounds going forward,
>> - should move towards something like UUIDs and petnames in the long run.
>>
>> (see https://spritelyproject.org/news/petname-systems.html).
>
> I don't understand how using petnames,
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 04:23:01PM +0100, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
> Am 21.03.24 um 07:12 schrieb MSavoritias:
> > Specifically the social rules that we support trans people and we want
> > to include them. Any person really that want to change their name at
> > some point for some reason.
>
>
Hi,
What are you implying with the "loud" minority here?
MSavoritias
He's probably talking about the same thing that made you continue being
heated after the fact you were told to calm down and you are not wasting
any single opportunity to continue answering every single email in this
On 3/21/24 17:23, Hartmut Goebel wrote:
Am 21.03.24 um 07:12 schrieb MSavoritias:
Specifically the social rules that we support trans people and we
want to include them. Any person really that want to change their
name at some point for some reason.
Interestingly you are asking the right
Am 21.03.24 um 07:12 schrieb MSavoritias:
Specifically the social rules that we support trans people and we want
to include them. Any person really that want to change their name at
some point for some reason.
Interestingly you are asking the right to get the old name rewritten for
trans
On 3/21/24 17:08, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:
Hello pinoaffe,
pinoaffe writes:
[...]
I think we, as Guix,
- should examine if/how it is currently feasible to rewrite our git
history,
it's not, see also:
https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2020/securing-updates/
- should examine possible
Hello pinoaffe,
pinoaffe writes:
[...]
> I think we, as Guix,
> - should examine if/how it is currently feasible to rewrite our git
> history,
it's not, see also:
https://guix.gnu.org/en/blog/2020/securing-updates/
> - should examine possible workarounds going forward,
> - should move
Hi!
MSavoritias writes:
> On 3/20/24 19:22, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:
>> Disclaimer: I've still not read all the relevant threads [3] [4], so
>> please forgive me if I repeat some information already provided.
>>
>> What rights are we talking about?
>
> You are making the same misconception as
Hello all. I object to this argument:
MSavoritias writes:
> We are talking about social rules that we have here in the Guix
> community not legal/state rules.
No, legal rules come from deliberation of social arguments.
CoC-wise, it seems to me that SWH was unfriendly and this is important
to
> We are talking about social rules that we have here in the Guix
> community not legal/state rules.
ethics, i.e. the discussion of rights, is a branch of philosophy.
ideally, it should inform the people who are writing and enforcing state laws,
but these days -- sadly -- it has precious
On 3/20/24 19:22, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:
Hello Ludovic and Guix devel community!
Disclaimer: I've still not read all the relevant threads [3] [4], so
please forgive me if I repeat some information already provided.
What rights are we talking about?
You are making the same misconception as
Hello Ludovic and Guix devel community!
Disclaimer: I've still not read all the relevant threads [3] [4], so
please forgive me if I repeat some information already provided.
What rights are we talking about?
As a *free software* user do I have the right to redistribute /old/
copies of the
paul writes:
[...]
> If we'd really need to identify contributors, and obviously Guix
> doesn't, we could use an UUID/machine readable identifier which can then
> be mapped to a displayed name. I believe git can already be configured
> to do so.
every contributor wishing to do so can
Simon Tournier writes:
Hi,
On lun., 18 mars 2024 at 12:38, Ian Eure
wrote:
They appear to be violating free software licenses on large
scale.
They are in violation of SWH’s own positions.
[...]
[1]: https://arxiv.org/html/2402.19173v1
[2]:
Hi,
On lun., 18 mars 2024 at 12:38, Ian Eure wrote:
> They appear to be violating free software licenses on large scale.
> They are in violation of SWH’s own positions.
[...]
> [1]: https://arxiv.org/html/2402.19173v1
> [2]:
> https://huggingface.co/spaces/HuggingFaceH4/starchat2-playground
> not an expert in guix internals) the only reason we care about
> identity is that it's part of git commits.
identities are deeply intertwined with trust (our best predictor of future
behavior is past behavior). and how trust is facilitated by the tools and
processes (including the social
Hello,
Ian Eure skribis:
> HuggingFace and the StarCoder2 model is in violation of principle 2.
> By their own admission, they are including code without clear
> licensing[1]:
[...]
> HuggingFace is also in violation of the third principle, because they
> haven’t established a functioning
On 2024-03-18 12:08:48 +, Daniel Littlewood wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I think the discussion so far splits into "should something be done"
> and "what can be done". The "should something be done" is easier to
> address, I think, so I'll deal with it first. I particularly have
> Attila's reply
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024, Kaelyn wrote:
> On Monday, March 18th, 2024 at 2:28 AM, Simon Tournier
> wrote:
[...]
>> That’s the double sword of “free software”. :-)
>
> Hi,
>
> I want to stress that I am not a lawyer, but my (possiblibly outdated)
> understanding of what machine learning models can
Simon Tournier writes:
Hi,
On sam., 16 mars 2024 at 08:52, Ian Eure
wrote:
They appear to be using the archive to build LLMs:
https://www.softwareheritage.org/2024/02/28/responsible-ai-with-starcoder2/
About LLM, Software Heritage made a clear statement:
Hi Kaelyn,
The legal question is unsettled, and there is ongoing litigation by
(at least) Matthew Butterick in the US, since at least 2022. The
reasonable positions I'm aware of are:
1. An LLM (or, more precisely, the set of weights that define it) is
not a derivative work of its training data,
Hi everyone,
I think the discussion so far splits into "should something be done"
and "what can be done". The "should something be done" is easier to
address, I think, so I'll deal with it first. I particularly have
Attila's reply in mind.
> let's put aside the trans aspect of this question for
On Monday, March 18th, 2024 at 2:28 AM, Simon Tournier
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On sam., 16 mars 2024 at 08:52, Ian Eure i...@retrospec.tv wrote:
>
> > They appear to be using the archive to build LLMs:
> > https://www.softwareheritage.org/2024/02/28/responsible-ai-with-starcoder2/
>
>
> About
On 3/18/24 17:14, Andreas Enge wrote:
Am Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 04:33:49PM +0200 schrieb MSavoritias:
Actually gitlab already is facing something like that and they are doing
what was proposed elsewhere: mapping of UUIDs to display names
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/20960
Am Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 04:33:49PM +0200 schrieb MSavoritias:
> Actually gitlab already is facing something like that and they are doing
> what was proposed elsewhere: mapping of UUIDs to display names
> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/20960
Interesting, thanks! It is something that
Lars-Dominik Braun writes:
>> I have heard folks in the Guix maintenance sphere claim that we
>> never rewrite git history in Guix, as a matter of policy. I believe we
>> should revisit that policy (is it actually written anywhere?) with an
>> eye towards possible exceptions, and develop a
On 3/18/24 16:19, Andreas Enge wrote:
Am Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 04:03:20PM +0200 schrieb MSavoritias:
Rewriting history is the wrong question imo. I dont think a request to
change all of the history of Guix will be accepted anyway.
A much easier thing to do is to change the approach in the
Hi MSavoritias,
On lun., 18 mars 2024 at 16:00, MSavoritias wrote:
> I think you have misunderstood that here we are talking about
> I think you have misunderstood that here we are talking about
What if? Maybe it’s you. Maybe you, “you have misunderstood that here
we are talking about […]”.
Am Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 04:03:20PM +0200 schrieb MSavoritias:
> Rewriting history is the wrong question imo. I dont think a request to
> change all of the history of Guix will be accepted anyway.
> A much easier thing to do is to change the approach in the future. And let
> all the past history
On 3/18/24 15:35, Andreas Enge wrote:
Hello all,
Am Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 12:26:18PM +0100 schrieb Simon Tournier:
Therefore, it would be more constructive if you come with a
proof-of-concept allowing “history rewrite” and strong “software
identification” property
the one thing I can think
On 3/18/24 15:12, Simon Tournier wrote:
Hi MSavoritias,
On lun., 18 mars 2024 at 13:47, MSavoritias wrote:
As advice for the future when somebody says a concern or wish they have,
your first statement shouldn't be "but its legal" because that
completely dismisses any constructive
Hello all,
Am Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 12:26:18PM +0100 schrieb Simon Tournier:
> Therefore, it would be more constructive if you come with a
> proof-of-concept allowing “history rewrite” and strong “software
> identification” property
the one thing I can think of, and which would allow time travel
Hi MSavoritias,
On lun., 18 mars 2024 at 13:47, MSavoritias wrote:
> 1.
>
> You seem to be misunderstanding the statement here that was said.
>
> What you can do legally and what you can do socially are not always the
> same thing.
I do not read where I wrote something like that but anyway.
On 3/18/24 11:28, Simon Tournier wrote:
Hi,
On sam., 16 mars 2024 at 08:52, Ian Eure wrote:
They appear to be using the archive to build LLMs:
https://www.softwareheritage.org/2024/02/28/responsible-ai-with-starcoder2/
About LLM, Software Heritage made a clear statement:
Hi,
On lun., 18 mars 2024 at 12:10, MSavoritias wrote:
> The right of a trans person to ask a project to not advertise their
> deadname was never in question.
>
> Guix is a place that supports trans people and anybody else that wants
> to change their name.
There is a difference between
Hi,
On sam., 16 mars 2024 at 08:52, Ian Eure wrote:
> They appear to be using the archive to build LLMs:
> https://www.softwareheritage.org/2024/02/28/responsible-ai-with-starcoder2/
About LLM, Software Heritage made a clear statement:
The guix-daemon does the hashing, so guix-daemon would have to be fixed
to override integrity checks (and it would have to be patched
retroactively in every time-travel). Noone likes touching guix-daemon
(until it is rewritten in Guile), so I can imagine it would be
frustrating.
Now ftfy is not
On 3/18/24 02:10, Attila Lendvai wrote:
I was also distressed to see how poorly they treated a developer
who wished to update their name:
https://cohost.org/arborelia/post/4968198-the-software-heritag
https://cohost.org/arborelia/post/5052044-the-software-heritag
let's put aside the trans
> I was also distressed to see how poorly they treated a developer
> who wished to update their name:
> https://cohost.org/arborelia/post/4968198-the-software-heritag
> https://cohost.org/arborelia/post/5052044-the-software-heritag
let's put aside the trans aspect of this question for a moment,
> only a 35 yrs old white cis boy
you're judging a group of individuals, namely those who were handed the cis
white male mix at the genetic lottery, as a uniform blob. and maybe even
somewhat deplorable, if i'm reading your right.
does it make sense to judge an individual based on some
Regarding Guix development, if the decision is made to not change
existing policy or implement another authorship mechanism, I think some
text could be added to the manual explaining such.
Contributing to Guix is an intentional thing, unlike SWH. Updating the
manual means contributors will, at
Hi,
Ian Eure skribis:
> They appear to be using the archive to build LLMs:
> https://www.softwareheritage.org/2024/02/28/responsible-ai-with-starcoder2/
To me, if the end result is that copyleft licenses are ignored, as is
the case with Microsoft’s CoPilot, then we have a problem.
That’s no
On 3/17/24 18:20, Ian Eure wrote:
MSavoritias writes:
On 3/17/24 11:39, Lars-Dominik Braun wrote:
Hey,
I have heard folks in the Guix maintenance sphere claim that we
never rewrite git history in Guix, as a matter of policy. I believe
we should revisit that policy (is it actually
MSavoritias writes:
On 3/17/24 13:53, paul wrote:
Hi all ,
thank you MSavoritias for bringing up points that many of us
share. It's clearly a tradeoff what to do about the past. For
the
future, as Christpher already stated, we need a serious
solution
that we can uphold as a free software
MSavoritias writes:
On 3/17/24 11:39, Lars-Dominik Braun wrote:
Hey,
I have heard folks in the Guix maintenance sphere claim that
we
never rewrite git history in Guix, as a matter of policy. I
believe
we should revisit that policy (is it actually written
anywhere?)
with an eye towards
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024, Ian Eure wrote:
[...]
> GPL’d software I’ve created has been packaged for Guix, which I assume
> means it’s been included in SWH. While I’m dealing with their (IMO:
> unethical) opt-out process, I likely also need to stop new copies from
> being uploaded again in the
On 2024-03-17 12:53:54 +0100, paul wrote:
> only a 35 yrs old white cis boy
Could you stop labeling people like this? It makes me feel uncomfortable and
not welcomed...
T.
--
There are only two hard things in Computer Science:
cache invalidation, naming things and off-by-one errors.
On 3/17/24 13:53, paul wrote:
Hi all ,
thank you MSavoritias for bringing up points that many of us share.
It's clearly a tradeoff what to do about the past. For the future, as
Christpher already stated, we need a serious solution that we can
uphold as a free software project that does not
Hi all ,
thank you MSavoritias for bringing up points that many of us share. It's
clearly a tradeoff what to do about the past. For the future, as
Christpher already stated, we need a serious solution that we can uphold
as a free software project that does not alienate users or contributors.
On 3/17/24 11:39, Lars-Dominik Braun wrote:
Hey,
I have heard folks in the Guix maintenance sphere claim that we never rewrite
git history in Guix, as a matter of policy. I believe we should revisit that
policy (is it actually written anywhere?) with an eye towards possible
exceptions,
Hey,
> I have heard folks in the Guix maintenance sphere claim that we never rewrite
> git history in Guix, as a matter of policy. I believe we should revisit that
> policy (is it actually written anywhere?) with an eye towards possible
> exceptions, and develop a mechanism for securely
On 3/16/24 21:45, Tomas Volf wrote:
On 2024-03-16 20:24:50 +0200, MSavoritias wrote:
I was also distressed to see how poorly they treated a developer who
wished to update their name:
https://cohost.org/arborelia/post/4968198-the-software-heritag
[I intended to CC the following to guix-devel but forgot:]
--- Forwarded Message ---
From: Ryan Prior
Date: On Saturday, March 16th, 2024 at 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: Concerns/questions around Software Heritage Archive
To: Vivien Kraus
>
>
> On Saturday, March 16th, 2024 a
On 2024-03-17 00:16:26 +0100, Vivien Kraus wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Le samedi 16 mars 2024 à 17:50 +, Christopher Baines a écrit :
> > This is probably worth thinking about as Guix is in a similar
> > situation
> > regarding publishing source code, and people potentially wanting to
> > change
Hello!
Le samedi 16 mars 2024 à 17:50 +, Christopher Baines a écrit :
> This is probably worth thinking about as Guix is in a similar
> situation
> regarding publishing source code, and people potentially wanting to
> change historical source code both in things Guix packages and Guix
>
On Saturday, March 16th, 2024 at 10:52 AM, Ian Eure wrote:
>
>
> Hi Guixy people,
> [...]
> I was also distressed to see how poorly they treated a developer
> who wished to update their name:
> https://cohost.org/arborelia/post/4968198-the-software-heritag
>
On 2024-03-16 12:06:27 -0700, Ian Eure wrote:
>
> Christopher Baines writes:
>
> > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
> >
> > Ian Eure writes:
> >
> > > Hi Guixy people,
> > >
> > > I’d never heard of SWH before I started hacking on Guix last fall,
> > > and
> > > it struck me as rather a good idea.
On 2024-03-16 20:24:50 +0200, MSavoritias wrote:
> > > I was also distressed to see how poorly they treated a developer who
> > > wished to update their name:
> > > https://cohost.org/arborelia/post/4968198-the-software-heritag
> > > https://cohost.org/arborelia/post/5052044-the-software-heritag
>
Christopher Baines writes:
[[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]]
Ian Eure writes:
Hi Guixy people,
I’d never heard of SWH before I started hacking on Guix last
fall, and
it struck me as rather a good idea. However, I’ve seen some
things
lately which have soured me on them.
They appear to
MSavoritias writes:
> On 3/16/24 19:50, Christopher Baines wrote:
>> Ian Eure writes:
>>
>>> Hi Guixy people,
>>>
>>> I’d never heard of SWH before I started hacking on Guix last fall, and
>>> it struck me as rather a good idea. However, I’ve seen some things
>>> lately which have soured me
On 3/16/24 19:50, Christopher Baines wrote:
Ian Eure writes:
Hi Guixy people,
I’d never heard of SWH before I started hacking on Guix last fall, and
it struck me as rather a good idea. However, I’ve seen some things
lately which have soured me on them.
They appear to be using the archive
Ian Eure writes:
> Hi Guixy people,
>
> I’d never heard of SWH before I started hacking on Guix last fall, and
> it struck me as rather a good idea. However, I’ve seen some things
> lately which have soured me on them.
>
> They appear to be using the archive to build LLMs:
>
On 3/16/24 17:52, Ian Eure wrote:
Hi Guixy people,
I’d never heard of SWH before I started hacking on Guix last fall, and
it struck me as rather a good idea. However, I’ve seen some things
lately which have soured me on them.
They appear to be using the archive to build LLMs:
Hi Guixy people,
I’d never heard of SWH before I started hacking on Guix last fall,
and it struck me as rather a good idea. However, I’ve seen some
things lately which have soured me on them.
They appear to be using the archive to build LLMs:
73 matches
Mail list logo
