FreeCAD had improved massively since the recent 1.0 release, unlike GIMP…

This is always interesting to hear because as someone who went school in a non English speaking country, GIMP was obviously never an issue. In most of the world the name isn’t an issue.

I only learned about that alternative meaning years later.

I already wasn’t watching LTT at the time, but I stopped watching Gamers Nexus after other YouTubers showed receipts that his video was false.

Or is very aware of it and hates the guy in the article

Because it’s ragebait. The restaurant accepts baht as normal, but the customer didn’t have any cash on them. The restaurant agreed to accept payment in renminbi as a workaround.

What they refused is one particular payment method called ThaiQR, which is not accepted everywhere.

Everyone is suggesting Immich, which is the answer if you want to self-host. But you say you are not very tech savvy, so you might want a service you don’t need to self-host, and in that case take a look at Ente Photos.

You get end to end encrypted photos and don’t need to do anything. They have guides on how to move your photos from Google Photos as well.

Ente can also be self-hosted, so you can compare what you like more.

Then they should be happy with same sex marriages. A miracle might occur with them just as well.

Then what did you mean when you said:

the output will always be in the public domain

It seems to me like a pretty clear statement.

I’m saying that the rewrite of chardet infringes on the copyright of the original work. That is neither MIT licensed nor public domain. It’s illegally reproduced and distributed copyrighted work.

That I never disputed, I’m not interested about chardet or whatever happened here, I’m interested about your comment that LLM output is always public domain, and if so, whether it could be used to achieve the goal of reimplementing a library so that it achieves the same purpose but isn’t bound by the original license, if you do it without infringing on the copyright of the original work.

That all makes sense to me, all I meant is that you are answering the relicense question literally, which I don’t think actually matters. The situation we are pondering is that someone wants to free a project from it’s original license.

They are claiming they did a magic trick with an LLM and now the project is MIT licensed. And you are saying that it’s not, it’s public domain. But the distinction is immaterial to the person’s goal. Whether the author is right or you are right, the project is no longer under its original license, and whether that is something that can happen is the actual question here, regardless if the resulting output can be licensed or not.

Yes, but what does that have to do with LLM output being not copyrightable?

So you are agreeing using the LLM worked? Because that’s what the author wanted: generate a freely usable version that is no longer bound by copyright or the original license.

You should tell that to Linus Torvalds, he’s developing the Linux kernel without using GitHub at all. I’m sure he will appreciate being told git is insuffient to develop a good product and write good code, the best practice is to use a Microsoft service in a particular way and nothing else can work.

Tell me, when I work on a project alone, who am I exactly requesting to pull my code and why do I need to use a feature of some git hosting website instead of reviewing, checking, debugging, merging, and reverting if necessary my change locally?

“because that’s the only way to use it without being harassed online”

I disagree with his reasons for removing it, but they are pretty clear.

Why? What difference does it make if he packages these commits in 1 or 10 PRs?

Keep in mind this is a single maintainer project, there are no PR reviews. He could be just pushing straight to the branch anyway with no PR at all.

The “single pull request” is a merge release from 79 separate commits. It’s the sum of all work, it doesn’t mean all of it was changed in one go.

What I meant probably didn’t carry over through text well. I was being very literal because you were very literal – to show the problem with that.

Yes, obviously you didn’t mean it would actually be illegal in all countries that exist. My point is that the “zero-humans” naming also doesn’t actually mean zero humans. There is someone controlling whatever that project is.

Legally in which of the 190+ countries?

No he wasn’t. Although there was a clickbait article recently that implied it in the title, while in the actual article just saying that in theory it’s possible it could happen.

As bad as it is, it would still be an improvement compared to the US for them.

Slop PRs are submitted by users, not by a Claude bot like this screenshot refers to