I am now willing to describe the Linux Foundation as "a force for evil in the world"

[yohan@social.xenofem.me]

@mcc why am i not surprised?

[mcc@mastodon.social]

What's really interesting about this is that slop model makers do not honor copyright retaliation or even *license withdrawal* clauses in normal works. For example, when Stack Overflow sold my posts to a slop vendor, violating the CC-BY-SA license Stack Overflow licenses are licensed under, I was not allowed to remove my posts from the site (and banned when I tried to take steps in that direction), although the CC-BY-SA license has a "terminate on violation" clause.

[bob@feed.hella.cheap]

@mcc I mean it probably doesn't matter because now that the big models have gotten to the point that making them better at one thing makes them worse on a bunch of other things everybody's going to move to task-specific distills, and those are really cheap to make. also the chinese model companies don't use OSI licenses

[bob@feed.hella.cheap]

@mcc if you have some example task data I think unsloth will make you a distill if you just click some buttons

[a2_4am@mastodon.social]

@mcc terminate on *your* violation, not on *our* training data

[glitterbean@wehavecookies.social]

@mcc I've wasted so much time and $ on that damn site.

[ireneista@adhd.irenes.space]

@mcc yeah. institutionalism.... mm. it is not a good way to structure things

[Gæst]

@mcc

'post unavailable'

[raster@retro-gaiden.com]

@mcc They are became such from quite a time when they let Red Hat and their corporate mindset take over quite a lot of critical stuff in the linux ecosystem.
Nowday they just took off the hat.

Perhaps the twists was that GPL was made to keep off the corporate to control the rights on the source, with the side effect to have made the GLP itself a corporate entity.

[gyrosgeier@hachyderm.io]

@mcc @ireneista such a licence would need to distinguish between direct use of a model ("reviewing generated code while prompting and deciding what to accept") and indirect use ("reviewing generated code submitted to a project and deciding what to accept").

I suspect they won't manage to define that in a way that makes any sense, and I fully intend to assert that any such model violates my copyright, so I am no longer allowed to look at PRs generated with such a model, in true copyleft spirit.

[tock@corteximplant.com]

@mcc Thanks for calling attention to this.

Holy shit, Linux is going to the wolves, isn't it?

[rigrig@akkoma.tubul.net]

@mcc@mastodon.social I’ve always thought of the Linux Foundation as “big corporations voting with their wallets about the future of Linux”.

[sasann@mastodon.social]

@mcc Jim Zemlin and Linus Torvalds got to go.

[gilgwath@social.tchncs.de]

@mcc @linuxfoundation never lifted a finger to protect FOSS projects from scrapping or the bots DOSing their sites. They stopped caring about FOSS while ago. These days it's just about money. They are just a sock puppet with all the hands of all the big corpos up their ... I don't trust them and I think it they should be disbanded. The foundation has outlived it's usefulness.

[kerplunk@mastodon.scot]

@mcc

I am now willing to describe the Linux Foundation as "a force for evil in the world"

What do you expect, it is dominatet by us big tech companys, IBM at the forefront....

It is all about embrace and destroy.

[wiert@mastodon.social]

@mcc the dark side gets bigger. I don't like it.

[mspcommentary@mastodon.online]

@mcc the Linux Foundation, whose platinum members include Microsoft, Oracle and Meta, could never be a force for evil.

[dallo@pouet.chapril.org]

@mcc
The linux foundation is twelve megacorp in a trenchcoat

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/members

@joachim

[hsmolin@mastodon.bawue.social]

@mcc like in many institutions originally founded for benefit of the common, there is a need to withstand attempts to be taken over by funding members (what a difference an 'o' makes). Which requires idealist leaders, not managers educated in monetary business.