Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | pseudalopex's commentslogin

> If Linux is to become truly popular desktop, it needs DEs like Gnome

Linux has a DE like GNOME. How many DEs like GNOME does it need?


Yeah, and more DEs like GNOME will just take devs away from GNOME, and GNOME will regress. There aren't tons of avilable open-source devs who have the skill necessary to create a DE.

There's a lot of "we need this" "we need that" in the open-source world. But when you look at all the limitations objectively, we've already reached the highest point we can achieve.


> Before passing through the device, the plaintiff spoke to another officer, trying to explain the situation, but was told that the AIT machine had been “adjusted” so that it would not damage her spinal cord implant.

> there’s jurisdiction that says AI-generated art can’t be copyrighted

The headline was misleading. The courts said what Thaler could have copyrighted was a complicated question they ignored because he said he was not the author.



Python wouldn't take LGPL code in the standard library. And Dan Blanchard imagined more people would want to work on it.[1]

[1] https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/327#issuecomment-4...


That take and the link within it to https://github.com/chardet/chardet/issues/36 which is from 2014 (!!) and revived in 2021 (!) make me think now that Dan Blanchard is in good faith, but still acted in a naive manner. Rewriting from "scratch" with Claude Code and basically taking over the project by changing the license, all in one single pull request, well... it's not going to end well on the public relations side.

The headline was misleading. The courts avoided to decide what Thaler could have copyrighted because he said he was not the author.

Copyright and privacy rights are different.

I did not refer to privacy rights. If you post a photo of yourselves online, you're giving up on a tiny part of your privacy rights. So my question still stands: would running your photos that you have taken of yourselves through a diffusion model rip your copyright of your photo?

Yes, anything AI-generated should be public domain including the AI-generated picture that used your photo as input.

So we have two positions here: 1) LLMs are trained on non-licensed information, so anything coming out of them must be created without a license, so no one should be allowed to use it. 2) LKMs are trained on public information, so everything coming out of the must be public domain.

These two positions are mutually exclusive and I feel that both are not entirely false, but also certainly not fully correct.


Is this true once you use a fancy filter of the photo app of your choice? Is this true once your phone applies such a filter without asking you? Should this be true for Theseus‘ Ship?

The court avoided a decision of what the operator could have copyrighted because he said he was not the author.

Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: