I can’t understand how the shadows and reflections are so accurate (not perfect, but convincing) like here or here.

Was this accidentally posted on Lemmy from Mastodon because the community was tagged?

AFAIK their free tier doesn’t do P2P.

I really like the concept but I never managed to convince anyone in real life to use it with me. lmao

Edit: I’ve just realized this post is from 7 months ago; why did someone bump this now?

You could try on Library Genesis or Z-Library, but if you can’t find it there, then I don’t know, sorry.

Edit: wait, I misread. If you’re looking for printed books, I don’t think this is the right community.

I’m using Memmy, Mlem, Liftoff, Thunder and wefwef lmao

Haha, same here! I was so proud I knew what the title was referring to before reading the post. Lol

This is the piracy community, not the privacy one 🙃

I have plenty of RAM and I run Linux on a VM. Works like a charm. You can even use open source hypervisors like UTM.

I wouldn’t bother running it on bare metal just yet.

I do trust the devices on my network but I guess I’ll probably look into how to setup HTTPS.

I should’ve been more neutral with my statement.

My takeaway is that so far no one has proved that Red Hat is violating the GPL. On the other hand, Red Hat has provided an explanation that would imply how it works without violating the GPL. So what I’m saying is that if they’re right, then all that I’ve said so far is correct. If they’re wrong, we don’t know yet.

I’m not a lawyer or a Red Hat employee; I’m just here to share my understanding. I posted that link because I thought they explained it well, and yeah, it is not 100% clear yet. But for this same reason, I would not say with confidence that they’re violating the GPL.

This has the best explanation I’ve seen: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/

In particular, see the section “What Exactly Is the RHEL Business Model?”.

Or, if you want a short sentence to read only:

Whether that analysis is correct is a matter of intense debate, and likely only a court case that disputed this particular issue would yield a definitive answer on whether that disagreeable behavior is permitted (or not) under the GPL agreements.

The point is that it does not violate the GPL.

Yes. I just don’t know if it’s good to phrase it as “RHEL customers are legally allowed to share the code”, since as soon as they do it they won’t be allowed to be customers anymore lol (assuming Red Hat finds out)

It’s simple: they can redistribute it since it’s GPL, but if they do so, they break their business contract with RedHat, so they’re not customers anymore and can’t see the source code in the future.

GPL doesn’t mean that they must give the code to everyone, only that you have those rights as long as you have the software. So RedHat is not forced to have everyone as a customer, and according to them, distributing the code kicks you out.

They can still re-distribute the current source they have, but will not have access to future source code.

They are kind of low-res for my standards to be honest, but they are legible.

EDIT: thanks, OP, by the way!

That’s not how I understood it. I think saying “closed source” is kind of misleading.

As long as you make it clear in the sidebar, I think it’s perfectly fine IMHO

It’s not even that selfish because surprisingly you might even find a few people who like your content and subscribe! Lol

The Arch Linux pipeline is real, folks.

As long as that feature can be disabled, which also clearly states that it sends stuff to Microsoft, I don’t see the big problem. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that there are many features enabled by default of dubious privacy.