Re: GPLed code on github (given the copilot controversy)

[jahoti]

On 7/12/21 9:16 PM, marc wrote:

Hi, me again

So I am going to respond to multiple comments in one go:

I had a look at Julia Reda's post, and as far as I can
make out, she only focuses on the fact that individual
snippets are very short - but doesn't make any mention that
inserting *lots* snippets algorithmically is *all* that
copilot does...


Repermutating lots of snippets is not in itself copyright infringement, 
however- otherwise everything written in English would infringe on the 
copyright of dictionary publishers! That's not to say what copilot 
produces isn't a derivative work; you give a good argument to support 
the contrary. It just fails to follow straightforwardly from the fact 
that copilot produces "remixes" of existing code.



Another commenter said that the codebase used to generate
the model is just somehow the "input" and not actually *in*
model - but I am not sure the distinction is that clear.


You would be correct to wonder- if you're referring to my comment, I 
apologize for what was a warped and unclear explanation of a warped and 
unclear point. The intended argument was that copilot never executes or 
distributes compiled copies of the input (or the model derived from it) 
as *software* or part of any software, and therefore does not trigger 
the requirement of sharing under the (A/L/)GPL.


However, after further consideration, the requirement to include a 
license notice would pose a problem- and more generally, omitting or 
erring on the license notices of copilot's output could become a nightmare.




OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: GPLed code on github (given the copilot controversy)

[Daniele "Mte90" Scasciafratte]

I think that the point is mainly how much means a copyright issue to train a 
machine learning model that can recreate the original with a specific 
percentage of similarity bu chunks (and define what means a chunk for code).
As example if GPL license says that you can use the 30% of code lines for usage 
to generate a model (I don't know a better lawyer term) I think that everything 
will be solved.

This is a new area for lawyers to discuss and also for OSI and we cannot do 
anything for that as it isn't covered and there are difference between 
countries a lot.

Honestly I think that the issue there is the GitHub behaviour that if also they 
are allowed to do something with the source the users upload there they are not 
releasing the list of repositories used or specified projects by license (if 
they are private or public too). Or just asked for permissions for it as it is 
splitting the dev community that are their customers after all.
We cannot forget that we don't know if they used also repositories with no 
licenses that are the facto proprietary and this happens a lot on GitHub.

My personal notes about abandoning GitHub as protest. I have everything on 
GitHub since 2012 with like 46 repositories on my profile (not talking about 
the various organizations and forks) and is not easy to migrate to a different 
platform and change all the reference to those. Also there is the issues of the 
many forks that aren't on GitHub so is not possible to contribute.
So I think that the only way is forcing GitHub to do something, like specify 
more clearly what they are doing and how.

FSFE and maybe also FSF can think on creating a campaign to asks to GitHub to 
do that changes.


Daniele Scasciafratte - OpenSource MultiVersal Guy
daniele.tech  - @Mte90Net  - GitHub 
 - Italian Linux Society council member  - 
Mozillian 
Mozilla Reps, Mozilla TechSpeakers, WordPress Core Contributor 
, FSFE member ,
LibreItalia member , Wikimedia Italia member 
 and LUG Rieti founder .
Il 12/07/21 23:16, marc ha scritto:

If
I ROT13 a Metallica mp3, then there is an algorithmic
transformation and new file is clearly different, but it
is possible to recover the original. In the same way it
could be argued that the copilot model encodes the input
code in its weightings. I suppose there are some losses,___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: GPLed code on github (given the copilot controversy)

[Paul Boddie]

On Monday, 12 July 2021 23:16:22 CEST marc wrote:
> Hi, me again
> 
> So I am going to respond to multiple comments in one go:
> 
> I had a look at Julia Reda's post, and as far as I can
> make out, she only focuses on the fact that individual
> snippets are very short - but doesn't make any mention that
> inserting *lots* snippets algorithmically is *all* that
> copilot does...

I imagine that the thinking at GitHub here is that if anyone's code is copied 
verbatim into something else, those people won't be able to assert their 
copyright based on some kind of "lack of standing", even if a lot of other 
people's code is also copied into the final work. Given that this kind of 
defense worked for actual, substantial, alleged infringement of the Linux 
kernel code by VMware, as opposed to chaotic copy-pasting of code fragments, I 
can easily see Microsoft's lawyers feeling confident that GitHub can get away 
with this, especially if combined with wide-eyed "it's an artificial 
intelligence" nonsense.

(I really wish people would stop referring to the application of supposed 
artificial intelligence techniques as *an* artificial intelligence, especially 
since beyond the breathless hype, few of those people are likely to be 
bothered with any of the broader ethical considerations at stake, particularly 
when applications of artificial intelligence do become sophisticated enough to 
merit concern about matters like the autonomy of such systems themselves.)

> In a way her position is understandable - I believe it
> is consistent with that of the pirate party - they are
> copyright minimalists, and would prefer a world with no
> copyright, as far as I can tell. But until IP lawyers call
> themselves TSOALGGM lawyers (that expands to "temporary
> stewards of a limited government granted monopoly" rather
> than "intellectual property") I am not sure if her view
> is representative of the current situation.

One might agree with her assertion that stronger and more severe copyright 
laws are not necessarily helpful for Free Software, copyleft in particular, 
given that copyleft is effectively meant to subvert the copyright regime to 
promote the fair sharing of software. I also have to say that this thread is 
the first I've heard of this matter, and since I follow the FSF's 
announcements (and controversies) fairly actively, I wonder which "copyleft 
scene" she is referring to. Maybe a bunch of people who have shovelled their 
code onto GitHub because it was the popular thing to do, plus a bunch of 
people on proprietary "social media" platforms?

> Another commenter said that the codebase used to generate
> the model is just somehow the "input" and not actually *in*
> model - but I am not sure the distinction is that clear. If
> I ROT13 a Metallica mp3, then there is an algorithmic
> transformation and new file is clearly different, but it
> is possible to recover the original. In the same way it
> could be argued that the copilot model encodes the input
> code in its weightings. I suppose there are some losses,
> but if I were to downsample and ROT13 a Metallica
> CD (I don't, I have decided not to like their music), I'd
> still be in trouble if I'd claim it as my own work, right ?
> And if I XOR it with a Rick Astley mp3, would that suddenly
> be fair use ?

There are quite a few things in the commentary that other commentators have 
surely picked apart already, but even skimming the text provides quite a few 
eyebrow-raising moments. For instance, the revelation that merely reading a 
book does not infringe copyright might be worth repeating to, say, the music 
industry, but what copyright is all about is indicated by its name. And 
traditionally, copying information does not tend to include "copying" it into 
one's brain via the visual system and other cognitive processes.

However, it is easy to see the top of the slippery slope at this point. What 
if the software is "an artificial intelligence" (sigh) that is merely being 
trained. It is then easy to imagine that companies might want to have things 
both ways (as they do now, but that is another matter): their artificial 
minion does all the work and isn't infringing anyone's copyright, but the 
company gets to copyright the output. At the same time, they can plead that it 
is just a machine and, unlike a human, cannot knowingly plagiarise other 
people's works.

Another thing that stood out was this: "The output of a machine simply does 
not qualify for copyright protection – it is in the public domain." Although I 
recognise that within a specific context, it might be true, it certainly is 
not unquestionably true beyond that context. A compiler takes source code and 
produces object code, but that object code is not in the public domain. Having 
spent the last few months indulging my nostalgia and reading old computing 
publications, I am reminded of the outrage back in the 1980s when one company 
produced a compiler for a microcomputer and then 

Re: GPLed code on github (given the copilot controversy)

[jahoti]

Hi,

you've certainly raised some interesting and important questions, as 
well as some deep philosophical comments. Unfortunately they're 
(obviously) not all things I can help with; however, some clarifications 
might be useful:


* The corpus of software is not part of the copilot "software" as such; 
it is only ever used as data, which then gets processed and reprocessed. 
I'm pretty sure that means it never runs afoul of any version of the 
(A/L/)GPL.


The main scenario where those licenses are involved is if someone asks 
copilot for some code and then puts that in a proprietary program.


* There are most definitely sizeable chunks of output reproduced 
verbatim from elsewhere (notably the fast inverse square root function, 
comments and all). Whether or not any are sufficiently large to attract 
copyright is, as you say, the interesting question.


* Simply republishing large amounts of a copyrighted work is not 
copyright infringement- every English-language book published in the 
last three decades shares a large portion of its vocabulary with any 
other! The question, really, is what the "chunks" that define code are.


* Copyright law does indeed differ quite a lot between countries, and 
you are right to think this could lead to different verdicts (that said, 
I'm not sure if it will; IANAL).


* GitHub's terms of service allow them to do a variety of things with 
user submissions only "as necessary to provide the Service, including 
improving the Service over time" (archival is allowed for some other 
purposes); it seems, depending on future developments, that there might 
be a case copilot is not covered by these criteria.


That said, I believe the (A/L/)GPL permit GitHub to do what they did 
anyway; this case might only apply to projects that make don't grant 
those rights separately under a license.


* It is arguably prudent to avoid hosting any code on GitHub, even 
perhaps after any legal issues are settled: 
https://www.gnu.org/software/repo-criteria-evaluation.html#GitHub


On 7/10/21 8:58 AM, marc wrote:

Hi

The way I understand this (I welcome corrections), is that
copilot is a piece of proprietary software which was built
using a corpus of software hosted on github.

And if I understand it properly, this corpus of software
includes code nominally released under the GPL and similar
licenses. Is my understanding correct sofar ?

I am told that copilot reproduces verbatim identifiable
chunks of the code that was loaded into its model. This
presents two interesting questions - is the model (which
is an algorithmic transformation of copyrighted material)
a new, rather than derivative work ? Are the fragments of
code reproduced by it sufficiently small to be considered
fair use ?

If I had to guess, I would answer no to both of these
questions: The pasting in is verbatim and automated,
and while individual pieces might not be large, there are
many. Fundamentally, I also would like to think that being
creative is something only a human/real intelligence
can be, otherwise the guy who wrote a program to enumerate
all melodies shorter than N would be owed sampling fees on
all new music... and few notes of music require a royalty
then a snippet of code might too ? If somebody writes an
"autocompose" equivalent to copilot, trained on existing
music, then they could expect legal action from record
labels ? And not only for the output of the "autoimprovise"
but also the model that forms the core of "autoplay" ?

But I am not qualified to provide a final answer on
that - I suppose judges will be the ones to make that
determination. Note the plural there - I am told fair
use and its equivalents differ nontrivially between
countries...

But assuming a no to those two points, github would then
(I think) rely on the terms and conditions on its site
which state that by uploading code to its site, you give
it the license to re-use your work, even in closed-source
products, apparently ?

Now: If you upload somebody else's GPLed code to github
that then implies that you (and maybe github) have
contravened the license, right ? And possibly that means
you lose your own permission to hold a copy of the GPLed
code ? Alternatively, if you are the legitimate owner of
the code, you have just dual licensed your code (with a
commercial grant to github, owned by microsoft) which is
probably not what you intended ?

Note the question marks everywhere - have I gotten my
facts wrong ? Is my reasoning incorrect ? Would it be
prudent to avoid using github for (A/L/)GPLed code until
the legalities have been settled ?

regards

marc
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct





OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: GPLed code on github (given the copilot controversy)

[Michael Pöhn]

Maybe future versions of GPL could cover this with an extended copyleft 
clause. I think it would be justified that software like copilot 
(including their datasets) also get GPL'd if they build on top of GPL 
source-code.


br. Michael

On 10.07.21 10:58, marc wrote:

Hi

The way I understand this (I welcome corrections), is that
copilot is a piece of proprietary software which was built
using a corpus of software hosted on github.

And if I understand it properly, this corpus of software
includes code nominally released under the GPL and similar
licenses. Is my understanding correct sofar ?
alsoalsoalso
I am told that copilot reproduces verbatim identifiable
chunks of the code that was loaded into its model. This
presents two interesting questions - is the model (which
is an algorithmic transformation of copyrighted material)
a new, rather than derivative work ? Are the fragments of
code reproduced by it sufficiently small to be considered
fair use ?

If I had to guess, I would answer no to both of these
questions: The pasting in is verbatim and automated,
and while individual pieces might not be large, there are
many. Fundamentally, I also would like to think that being
creative is something only a human/real intelligence
can be, otherwise the guy who wrote a program to enumerate
all melodies shorter than N would be owed sampling fees on
all new music... and few notes of music require a royalty
then a snippet of code might too ? If somebody writes an
"autocompose" equivalent to copilot, trained on existing
music, then they could expect legal action from record
labels ? And not only for the output of the "autoimprovise"
but also the model that forms the core of "autoplay" ?

But I am not qualified to provide a final answer on
that - I suppose judges will be the ones to make that
determination. Note the plural there - I am told fair
use and its equivalents differ nontrivially between
countries...

But assuming a no to those two points, github would then
(I think) rely on the terms and conditions on its site
which state that by uploading code to its site, you give
it the license to re-use your work, even in closed-source
products, apparently ?

Now: If you upload somebody else's GPLed code to github
that then implies that you (and maybe github) have
contravened the license, right ? And possibly that means
you lose your own permission to hold a copy of the GPLed
code ? Alternatively, if you are the legitimate owner of
the code, you have just dual licensed your code (with a
commercial grant to github, owned by microsoft) which is
probably not what you intended ?

Note the question marks everywhere - have I gotten my
facts wrong ? Is my reasoning incorrect ? Would it be
prudent to avoid using github for (A/L/)GPLed code until
the legalities have been settled ?

regards

marc
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: GPLed code on github (given the copilot controversy)

[marc]

Hi, me again

So I am going to respond to multiple comments in one go:

I had a look at Julia Reda's post, and as far as I can
make out, she only focuses on the fact that individual
snippets are very short - but doesn't make any mention that
inserting *lots* snippets algorithmically is *all* that 
copilot does...

In a way her position is understandable - I believe it
is consistent with that of the pirate party - they are
copyright minimalists, and would prefer a world with no
copyright, as far as I can tell. But until IP lawyers call
themselves TSOALGGM lawyers (that expands to "temporary
stewards of a limited government granted monopoly" rather
than "intellectual property") I am not sure if her view
is representative of the current situation.

Another commenter said that the codebase used to generate
the model is just somehow the "input" and not actually *in*
model - but I am not sure the distinction is that clear. If
I ROT13 a Metallica mp3, then there is an algorithmic
transformation and new file is clearly different, but it
is possible to recover the original. In the same way it
could be argued that the copilot model encodes the input
code in its weightings. I suppose there are some losses,
but if I were to downsample and ROT13 a Metallica
CD (I don't, I have decided not to like their music), I'd
still be in trouble if I'd claim it as my own work, right ?
And if I XOR it with a Rick Astley mp3, would that suddenly
be fair use ? 

Finally for more amusement value: A different conversation
points out to me that I should have made my mail more
click-baity: "Does copilot mean that microsoft has lost
its license to distribute the linux kernel ?" I am still
not sure - but maybe this bit of sensationalism makes is 
clearer what is at stake ?

regards

marc
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: GPLed code on github (given the copilot controversy)

[Daniele "Mte90" Scasciafratte]

Also I experience something similar of CoPilot for the Mozilla Italia 
DeepSpeech Italian model 
(https://github.com/MozillaItalia/DeepSpeech-Italian-Model).

When I studied how to deal with various audio+text/text-only italian datasets I 
talked a bit with other people of the Machine Learning community and also with 
some lawyers.
It is a grey area because the focus is that you are generating a model that 
don't let you to recreate the (in our case) original materials and also doesn't 
store (in some cases) the real trained content but just numbers.

So for the audio+text dataset we chosen to use only dataset with licenses that 
are CC or public domain (very few as a lot of them are academic and don't use 
license at all), instead for text-only we used various sources also with no 
licenses.
This because we are aggregating all the sources together, removing duplicates, 
symbols and other stuff so it is not possible to recreate the original material.
The model generated is released as CC0 and mention all the dataset used and for 
the text-only it is the same, also we release all the scripts to generate it 
but we don't release the files created during the parsing but just the final 
output.

Similar of what is doing the 
https://github.com/common-voice/cv-sentence-extractor that is using Wikipedia 
and Wikisource as source but they pick for every article just 3 sentences 
randomly. I know that for the project was involved the Mozilla Legal team and 
also if Wikipedia is CC0 they preferred that way.

The issue I see with CoPilot, but also with Kite or TabNine, that are all 
services for autocomplete or auto write code trained on open source code, is 
they can recreate part of the code but not all of that but the law doesn't 
mention the amount of that.
As example in Italy is allowed to photocopy just the 20% of a book by the 
copyrights laws.

PS: the story of the italian project with a talk at fosdem 2020 
https://archive.fosdem.org/2020/schedule/event/how_to_get_fun_with_teamwork/ or 
the written version 
https://daniele.tech/2019/12/how-the-italian-deepspeech-model-helped-our-mozilla-italia-community/


Daniele Scasciafratte - OpenSource MultiVersal Guy
daniele.tech  - @Mte90Net  - GitHub 
 - Italian Linux Society council member  - 
Mozillian 
Mozilla Reps, Mozilla TechSpeakers, WordPress Core Contributor 
, FSFE member ,
LibreItalia member , Wikimedia Italia member 
 and LUG Rieti founder .
Il 12/07/21 11:12, Paul Schaub ha scritto:

Hey,

while I can't answer your questions, here is an article by Julie Reda,
arguing that Copilot is not in fact infringing copyright and that the
copyleft movement would not benefit from stricter copyright rules:

https://juliareda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringing-your-copyright/

Regarding your question about music, there is an interesting provocative
project:

Fairuseify.ml uses a neural network to "learn" music that you upload to
it. You can then download what the network "learned" (which in my
experiments pretty much sounds like what you uploaded).

https://fairuseify.ml/

I'll watch this debate closely.

Paul

Am 10.07.21 um 10:58 schrieb marc:

Hi

The way I understand this (I welcome corrections), is that
copilot is a piece of proprietary software which was built
using a corpus of software hosted on github.

And if I understand it properly, this corpus of software
includes code nominally released under the GPL and similar
licenses. Is my understanding correct sofar ?

I am told that copilot reproduces verbatim identifiable
chunks of the code that was loaded into its model. This
presents two interesting questions - is the model (which
is an algorithmic transformation of copyrighted material)
a new, rather than derivative work ? Are the fragments of
code reproduced by it sufficiently small to be considered
fair use ?

If I had to guess, I would answer no to both of these
questions: The pasting in is verbatim and automated,
and while individual pieces might not be large, there are
many. Fundamentally, I also would like to think that being
creative is something only a human/real intelligence
can be, otherwise the guy who wrote a program to enumerate
all melodies shorter than N would be owed sampling fees on
all new music... and few notes of music require a royalty
then a snippet of code might too ? If somebody writes an
"autocompose" equivalent to copilot, trained on existing
music, then they could expect legal action from record
labels ? And not only for the output of the "autoimprovise"
but also the model that forms the core of "autoplay" ?

But I am not qualified to provide a final answer on
that - I suppose judges will be the ones to make that
determination. Note the plural there 

Re: GPLed code on github (given the copilot controversy)

[Alex]

On Mon, 12 Jul 2021 11:12:51 +0200
Paul Schaub  wrote:

> Hey,
> 
> while I can't answer your questions, here is an article by Julie Reda,
> arguing that Copilot is not in fact infringing copyright and that the
> copyleft movement would not benefit from stricter copyright rules:
> 
> https://juliareda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringing-your-copyright/
> 

This. Every new law will eventually be used against you. It would be
nice for GitHub to include an opt-out feature. Barring that, I would
move off their platform.

Alex
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct

Re: GPLed code on github (given the copilot controversy)

[Paul Schaub]

Hey,

while I can't answer your questions, here is an article by Julie Reda,
arguing that Copilot is not in fact infringing copyright and that the
copyleft movement would not benefit from stricter copyright rules:

https://juliareda.eu/2021/07/github-copilot-is-not-infringing-your-copyright/

Regarding your question about music, there is an interesting provocative
project:

Fairuseify.ml uses a neural network to "learn" music that you upload to
it. You can then download what the network "learned" (which in my
experiments pretty much sounds like what you uploaded).

https://fairuseify.ml/

I'll watch this debate closely.

Paul

Am 10.07.21 um 10:58 schrieb marc:
> Hi
>
> The way I understand this (I welcome corrections), is that
> copilot is a piece of proprietary software which was built
> using a corpus of software hosted on github.
>
> And if I understand it properly, this corpus of software
> includes code nominally released under the GPL and similar
> licenses. Is my understanding correct sofar ?
>
> I am told that copilot reproduces verbatim identifiable
> chunks of the code that was loaded into its model. This
> presents two interesting questions - is the model (which
> is an algorithmic transformation of copyrighted material)
> a new, rather than derivative work ? Are the fragments of
> code reproduced by it sufficiently small to be considered
> fair use ?
>
> If I had to guess, I would answer no to both of these
> questions: The pasting in is verbatim and automated,
> and while individual pieces might not be large, there are
> many. Fundamentally, I also would like to think that being
> creative is something only a human/real intelligence
> can be, otherwise the guy who wrote a program to enumerate
> all melodies shorter than N would be owed sampling fees on
> all new music... and few notes of music require a royalty
> then a snippet of code might too ? If somebody writes an
> "autocompose" equivalent to copilot, trained on existing
> music, then they could expect legal action from record
> labels ? And not only for the output of the "autoimprovise"
> but also the model that forms the core of "autoplay" ?
>
> But I am not qualified to provide a final answer on
> that - I suppose judges will be the ones to make that
> determination. Note the plural there - I am told fair
> use and its equivalents differ nontrivially between
> countries...
>
> But assuming a no to those two points, github would then
> (I think) rely on the terms and conditions on its site
> which state that by uploading code to its site, you give
> it the license to re-use your work, even in closed-source
> products, apparently ?
>
> Now: If you upload somebody else's GPLed code to github
> that then implies that you (and maybe github) have
> contravened the license, right ? And possibly that means
> you lose your own permission to hold a copy of the GPLed
> code ? Alternatively, if you are the legitimate owner of
> the code, you have just dual licensed your code (with a
> commercial grant to github, owned by microsoft) which is
> probably not what you intended ?
>
> Note the question marks everywhere - have I gotten my
> facts wrong ? Is my reasoning incorrect ? Would it be
> prudent to avoid using github for (A/L/)GPLed code until
> the legalities have been settled ?
>
> regards
>
> marc
> ___
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
> https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>
> This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
> participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
> https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All
participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other:
https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct