SirEDCaLot

Here's the story:
Company buys the rights to Winamp, tries to get the community to do their dev work for free, fails. That's it.

The 'Winamp source license' was absurdly restrictive. There was nothing open about it. You were not allowed to fork the repo, or distribute the source code or any binaries generated from it. Any patches you wrote became the property of Llama Group without attribution, and you were prohibited from distributing them in either source or binary form.

There were also a couple of surprises in the source code, like improperly included GPL code and some proprietary Dolby source code that never should have been released. The source code to Shoutcast server was also in there, which Llama group doesn't actually own the rights to.

This was a lame attempt to get the community to modernize Winamp for free, and it failed.

Of course many copies of the source code have been made, they just can't be legally used or distributed.

Today I learned. Thanks for that!

~~There's currently no way to delete an uploaded image.~~

~~That's especially problematic since pasting any image into a reply box auto-uploads it. So if your finger slips and you upload something sensitive, or if you want to take down something you uploaded previously, there's no way to do it.~~

~~What should happen is whenever you upload an image, the image and delete key get stored in some special part of your Lemmy account. Then from the Lemmy account management page you can see all your uploaded images and delete them individually or in bulk.~~

So it seems you can now do this- Profile, Uploads shows you all your uploads. Go Lemmy!

No it's actually pretty simple. No containers. Your passkeys can be managed in the browser (Google Passwords), by a plug-in like BitWarden, or in a third party hardware device like YubiKey.

And, with respect, this view is more naive (IMHO) because it's focused by size of company, and you can't do that. You can't have one set of laws for small companies and another set of laws for large companies.

So if Google has to pay to link to IA, then so does DuckDuckGo and any other small upstart search engine that might want to make a 'wayback machine this site!' button.

Google unquestionably gets value from the sites they link to. But if that value must be paid, then every other search engine has to pay it also, including little ones like DDG. That basically kills search engines as a concept, because they simply can't work on that model.

Thus I think your view is more naive, because you're just trying to stick it to Google rather than considering the full range of effects your policy would have.

Strong disagree. If I make a website people like, and Google links to it, should Google have to pay me? If so, Google basically can't exist. The record keeping of tracking every single little website that they owe money to or have to negotiate deals with would be untenable. And what happens if a large tech journal like CNET or ZDNet Links to the website of a company they are writing an article about? Do they have to pay for that? Is the payment assumed by publicity? Is it different if they link to a deep page versus the front page?

What you are talking opens up a gigantic can of worms that there is no easy solution to, if there is any solution at all.

I will absolutely give you that what Google is doing is shitty. If Google is basically outsourcing their cache to IA, they should be paying IA for the additional traffic and server load. But I think that 'should' falls in line with being a good internet citizen treating a non-profit fairly, not part of any actual requirement.

I had not realized that. They should absolutely be allowed to do it, but it's super shitty of them to basically offload that cost onto IA. IA of course would be well within their rights to try and monetize it. Look at incoming traffic that deep links a cached page and has a Google.com referrer, and throw a splash page or top banner asking for donation.

I don't agree. Free linking has always been a vitally important part of the open internet. The principle that if I make something available on a specific URL, others can access it, and I don't get to charge others for linking to a public URL is one of the core concepts of the internet itself.

That's a very good point. Things like chat GPT can accelerate the process of doing something that takes time but a human knows when it's done correctly. But in anything where finding truth is the goal, it shouldn't be trusted yet.

Most of this AI stuff is trash. I think Google AI has maybe once given me a useful answer. Amazon has this thing called Rufus that just slows down the process of searching customer reviews. Just like Google, it's maybe once or twice given me useful information and none of it worth the wait that it takes for the search results to come up.

But we are pouring billions into it and increasing our data center power usage by 10x because It's The Future ..

I'm with you on the Twitter style format. Reddit / Lemmy is nice because you can have actual conversations. Twitter you are basically shouting into the void and sometimes it shouts back.