MSavoritias writes:
>> > - Guix respects the consent of the person using guix lint and their
>> > expectations. (that lint actually lints)
>> > - Respects their privacy
>> > - Respects their autonomy.
>>
>> User autonomy is not curtailed by informing an aligned service's crawler
>> that an
MSavoritias writes:
>> To clarify. I am specifically opposed to a change in official Guix
>> packages that allows for this statement:
>>
>> "Do not upload automatically to software heritage, and no one else can
>> either."
>
> Let me put this more clear Richard, the statement above that
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 13:51:17 -0700
Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
Hey,
I am really tempted to just write this off as a bad faith argument (which it
mostly is) but either way i replied some things more down because I am trying
to believe you are
arguing in good faith.
If its not a bad faith
On Sat, 22 Jun 2024 09:06:20 -0400
Richard Sent wrote:
> Hi MSavoritias,
>
> MSavoritias writes:
>
> >> Well, the opt-in model is in place: As soon as I put my code under a free
> >> license on the Internet, I opt in for it to be harvested by SWH (and
> >> anybody
> >> else, including
Hi MSavoritias,
MSavoritias writes:
>> Well, the opt-in model is in place: As soon as I put my code under a free
>> license on the Internet, I opt in for it to be harvested by SWH (and anybody
>> else, including non-friendly companies and state actors).
> That may be how you have understood it
On 2024-06-21, MSavoritias wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:51:30 -0700
> Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
>
>> On 2024-06-21, MSavoritias wrote:
>> > On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:46:56 +0200
>> > Andreas Enge wrote:
>> >> Am Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 12:12:13PM +0300 schrieb MSavoritias:
>> >> > and as I
Hi Vagrant,
On Fri, Jun 21 2024, Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> I have to cut myself off now.
Please feel free to keep going. Out of the dozens of comments here,
including my own, yours was the most valuable.
+1 to your fatigue with LLM hype; to the critique of the excess
expenditure of precious
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 09:51:30 -0700
Vagrant Cascadian wrote:
> On 2024-06-21, MSavoritias wrote:
> > On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:46:56 +0200
> > Andreas Enge wrote:
> >> Am Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 12:12:13PM +0300 schrieb MSavoritias:
> >> > and as I mention in my first email I want to apply social
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 16:33:40 +
Luis Felipe wrote:
> El 21/06/24 a las 14:15, MSavoritias escribió:
> > On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 13:45:04 +
> > Luis Felipe wrote:
> >
> >> El 21/06/24 a las 10:44, MSavoritias escribió:
> >>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:46:56 +0200
> >>> Andreas Enge wrote:
>
El 21/06/24 a las 14:15, MSavoritias escribió:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 13:45:04 +
Luis Felipe wrote:
El 21/06/24 a las 10:44, MSavoritias escribió:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:46:56 +0200
Andreas Enge wrote:
Am Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 11:14:18AM +0300 schrieb MSavoritias:
Aside from that even
El 21/06/24 a las 10:44, MSavoritias escribió:
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:46:56 +0200
Andreas Enge wrote:
Am Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 11:14:18AM +0300 schrieb MSavoritias:
Aside from that even Guix uploading all code from the packages to
SWH that basically feeds it to a LLM model is indeed not
On 2024-06-21, MSavoritias wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:46:56 +0200
> Andreas Enge wrote:
>> Am Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 12:12:13PM +0300 schrieb MSavoritias:
>> > and as I mention in my first email I want to apply social pressure and
>> > make it clear to package authors what is happening so we
Hi, MSavoritias,
Am Freitag, dem 21.06.2024 um 17:15 +0300 schrieb MSavoritias:
> But I didnt say that tho did I? the context you are reading as from
> the quote is Guix uploading all code from its packages to SWH.
> Not any private repos. So i have no idea what you are reffering to
> here tbh.
I
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 13:45:04 +
Luis Felipe wrote:
> El 21/06/24 a las 10:44, MSavoritias escribió:
> > On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:46:56 +0200
> > Andreas Enge wrote:
> >
> >> Am Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 11:14:18AM +0300 schrieb MSavoritias:
> >>> Aside from that even Guix uploading all code
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 11:46:56 +0200
Andreas Enge wrote:
> Am Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 12:12:13PM +0300 schrieb MSavoritias:
> > and as I mention in my first email I want to apply social pressure and make
> > it clear to package authors what is happening so we can move to an opt-in
> > model.
>
>
Am Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 12:12:13PM +0300 schrieb MSavoritias:
> and as I mention in my first email I want to apply social pressure and make
> it clear to package authors what is happening so we can move to an opt-in
> model.
Well, the opt-in model is in place: As soon as I put my code under a
On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 10:39:50 +0200
Simon Tournier wrote:
Hey,
Just wanted to send a quick reply that as I have mentioned elsewhere I do not
wish to see SWH go. I think they are doing great work.
and as I mention in my first email I want to apply social pressure and make it
clear to package
Hi all,
For the record, the Software Heritage initiative is supportive of the
Guix project since years.
It means that members of Guix community have or had interactions with
Software Heritage (SWH) teams since years. For example, the blog post
“Connecting reproducible deployment to a long-term
18 matches
Mail list logo
