The signing ensures the integrity of the data, whether using a public block chain or not.

The signed document can be distributed as widely as you’d like - it doesn’t need to be attached to a block chain to do this.

Can confirm. The rosellas were delightful. The Ibis were pretty awesome as well -such a trashy looking bird. Ours at least hides its shame (kiwi).

I’ve always heard them described as seagull managers. Screams loudly, shits everywhere, leaves.

Have you considered moving somewhere that’s better aligned with your values? It’s not something to undertake lightly, but I know that moving helped me a lot. Totally different situation for me though.

For me it was basically just moving somewhere bigger, even if I didn’t get much better at making connections just knowing it was possible made a difference.

Good luck to you.

Copyright has little to say in regards to training models - it’s the published output that matters.

I thought the point of the LGPL was to allow this sort of usage without requiring the release of source code. It’s an extension of the GPL to remove those requirements isn’t it?

Why does the prompting matter? If I “prompt” a band to play copyrighted music does that mean they get a free pass?

They’re just pointing out that Windows does this too.

In my last couple of jobs I’ve found that most of the software required for work is either available as a web app or runs just fine on Linux. There have only been a handful of users needing Windows to do their jobs. It all depends on what your role is.

I don’t think so. Those users had opted in to share information within a certain group. They’ve already accepted the risk of sharing info with someone who might be untrustworthy.

Plenty of other systems do the same thing. I can share the list of games on my Steam account with my friends - the fact that a hacker might break into one of their accounts and access my data doesn’t mean that this sharing of information is broken by design.

If you choose to share your secrets with someone, you accept the risk that they may not protect them as well as you do.

There may be other reasons to criticise 23andMe’s security, but this isn’t a broken design.

Again, my freedom to use and modify the code as I see fit - including selling it - is the whole point.

There’s no doubt the developers deserve support for their work, but there’s no requirement imposed by Free Software for this.

All criminals get away with their crimes for a time. How many companies want to be sitting on a time bomb like that though?

The ability to modify the code is a central tenet of free software. The GPL takes care of making those modifications available to others. That effectively is the payment the original devs get.

Sometimes it pays to not go looking for problems.

The staff at such places can decide whether they want to ask a group to move on. Respect their choice to do so and stop trying to police your friends’ behaviours over your own fears.

Plagiarism involves an extra act of deceit. You’re passing off someone else’s work as your own. It appears most people find this immoral.

Also, copyright is a monopoly on the publication of the work - piracy as it’s commonly used wouldn’t even be considered infringement.