"Does the GPL specify that the user has to change the name when it's forked? "
- GPL is defines copyright permissions for the software code: copying, modifying, and redistributing.
- Trademark protection controls use of a name, logo, slogan, or branding.
“Notepad++” is a protected trademark, so a fork is allowed to use the GPL-covered source code any way it wants, but it can not use the trademark Notepad++ in a way that suggests it is the original project or is endorsed by it.
It would be like someone forking GnuCash from GPL code and calling then it "Quicken for Linux." The source code can be forked, but the Intuit trademark prevents someone from using the name Quicken because it could confuse users.
Your comment makes the copyright/trademark split very clear, thanks! But doesn't the existence and enforcement of the trademark put conditions on the code fork that are incompatible with the GPL? If I'm GPLing my code, the license says you can copy it and redistribute it, including all the strings and graphical assets covered under the license. It doesn't generally carve out stuff that's trademarked as not covered by the license. I can go to the Linux tree right now, fork a copy ("Linux" strings and all), and distribute it on my web site, and be legally in the clear. Same is true for any other GPL project out there.
In this case, the issues under dispute are the cases where the trademark was used outside of the GPL-covered code.
Specifically the port author using the Notepad++ name and logo on their website, in addition to the photo and bio of the original Notepad++ author, in a way that could mislead others to think that this was part of the original Notepad++ project.
Hosting a copy of the GPL'd Linux code, represented as such, and making a website claiming to represent Linux or the Linux Foundation with Linus's face and name on it are different things.
Their modified kernel tarball, yes. The idea is if you create a forked version that instead is malware, that intercepts everything that happens on the computer and sends it off to an adversary, that trademark protections allow the original author of the non-malicious software to say you can't call it by the name that I'm using for my product because you've changed it and it's malicious now.
Trademark law is the most reasonable leg of the intellectual property triad, in my opinion.
No, don't think so. But he can force you to call it "Carrot" in all marketing materials. Although you have to state it's a modification of "Linux" because of the GPL :)
The biggest problem is fans. They want to re-experience what they had when they first saw it, then get mad when the movies don't live up to their past experience. I was 7 when Star Wars came out. I had all the toys. I saw the movie a dozen times. It was an experience. As an adult, when I watch to again, I think “wow, this is really not good.” The special effects hold up , but the acting, the dialog, the pacing is all “meh”. When i compare it to the new movies, it’s the same. They are just not good.
And of course Disney wants to recapture the money bonanza that was generated by the original trilogy, but if they do anything that angers the fans, it get boycotted. If they try to stick with the original patterns, it gets called a remake. They are in a lose/lose situation.
Ultimately the fans need to let the nostalgia go and let the current generation build their own favorite movies instead of being told this or that franchise is the best.
I too realised that the films just aren't very good on re-watching them as an adult. The new films are not good in a different way though.
There was never even an attempt at a cohesive story, let alone a single vision for the sequels. It was given to different writers and directors who all had free reign for their projects and took them in different directions. They weren't just "not good", they were a mess.
Funny, the deeper I get into film the more I respect how much the original trilogy does really well. Especially the first two, Jedi’s got some “I have a story I want to tell a certain way but am stuck with more characters than I need and refuse to budge on either front” issues in the script, among other script issues (some giving us a preview of problems that would really come to the front in the prequels)
I thought the pacing for Asoka was particularly glacial. I get they were going with a thoughtful/slow burn but there was soooo much empty staring into space, landscape shots, filler content walking through the highlands with nothing happening, etc. I think they should have gotten Thrawn in the mix by episode 3!
Lots of these franchise-connected series are flabby as hell. Netflix’s marvel series were almost all very bad about this, but so are most of the Disney Marvel series. On the Star Wars side, whatever positive qualities they may exhibit, Asoka and the Kenobi show both could have used large cuts. Even the relatively-speaking excellent Andor often doesn’t make effective use of its time.
I’m not sure what it is about the economics of this form of the medium that causes that to happen.
What constitutes “at edited”. If I throw a block of text in to an ai see if it makes sense — say a response to a post — and fold the suggestions in, is that “ai edited”?
If you look at what you wrote and can't identify what rules you've broken, how are you able to validate that the AI output doesn't change the meaning of what you wrote?
Knowing whether or not the AI changed the meaning of what you wrote is not reliant on knowing which specific rules you broke. It's only reliant on you actually reading what the AI spat out and deciding “yes, this is what I meant” or “no, this is not what I meant”.
Unless you're arguing that the rule violations are something the author intends to be part of the meaning of what one wrote?
>Knowing whether or not the AI changed the meaning of what you wrote is not reliant on knowing which specific rules you broke. It's only reliant on you actually reading what the AI spat out and deciding “yes, this is what I meant” or “no, this is not what I meant”.
That's fair.
>Unless you're arguing that the rule violations are something the author intends to be part of the meaning of what one wrote?
I think what I wanted to get at is more like this:
1. I think that they may be part of the meaning
2. I think that people would be primed to accept changes even if they change the meaning
3. I suspected that it would always correct something and wouldn't just say LGTM even if the input was fine
To check, and at the risk of this being hypocritical, I asked for a grammar correction on part of your post that I thought had no mistakes, and both in context and isolation, it corrected "spat out" to "produced." Now, this isn't a huge deal, but it is a loss of the connotation of "spat out," which is the phrasing you chose.
I think grammatical errors are low-cost, and changes in meaning and intent are high-cost, so with 2. above, running it through an LLM risks more loss than it gains.
I suspect those relative costs would be very different for someone who's not me, though. My English writing ability is much higher than my Spanish writing ability, so in some alternate universe where Hacker News was Spanish-only instead of English-only, grammatical errors would add up to be a cumulatively-higher cost than a possible change in meaning/intent. I wouldn't have the requisite knowledge to know the difference in connotation between “produjo” v. “escupió” v. the myriad other verbs Kagi Translate is suggesting to me at the moment, whereas I'd probably have a lot of cases of not just bad grammar, but outright nonsensical word choices — like Peggy Hill in a Mexican courtroom (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b7QCvykBXik), except with the added torment of being actually self-aware of my linguistic ineptitude.
(On that tangential note, though, I do appreciate that Kagi Translate provides multiple translations and attempts to explain their differences in connotation such that I can pick whichever one most closely matches my intent; if other LLM-assisted writing tools did that then that'd render a lot of this problem moot.)
You're absolutely right! It's not the people correcting their Grammer that are the motivation for this rule, it's the people abusing these tools and ruining every online discussion with cookie-cutter comments.
In all seriousness, if you use some tool to make sure you're using the right "there", noone will mind. Just don't generate another boring predictable comment and everything will be ok
Um, why would you do that instead of waiting for someone more knowledgable to reply, and learn from? Replies are not mandatory, and experts/insiders participating is one of the best parts of the human Internet. Let them shine.
It can catch things that I might miss or might be misinterpreted. I sometime miss simple things, like like repeated words, that an AI point out. Is a spell checker considered "AI"? Is Grammerly? Okay, maybe Grammerly from 5 years ago as opposed to today? If I'm typing on my phone and it pops up the next suggested word, is that AI edited?
And no, I don't have to reply to a post, but when I think it's a bad policy, should I just accept it without discussion? And who determines the "experts/insiders" and which voices should be allowed?
Yes, these are MY questions and feelings too. In the past, if I just HINTED at asking these kinds of questions, I was downvoted into oblivion (in other accounts. I have to say THAT specifically because some people here dive in to my account and get super anal about my age, my previous comments, my moniker, ad nauseum)
>Um, why would you do that instead of waiting for someone more knowledgable to reply, and learn from? Replies are not mandatory, and experts/insiders participating is one of the best parts of the human Internet. Let them shine.
As Isaac Asimov pointed out[0]:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
This thread runs through many cultures and isn't just a problem on the Internet, although the Internet certainly has accelerated/worsened the problem. And it has created a distrust of experts which (as has been obvious for a long time) has made us, as a whole, dumber and less informed.
I recommend The Death of Expertise[1] by Tom Nichols for a sane and reasonable treatment of this issue. If books aren't your thing, Nichols did a book talk[2] which lays out the main points he makes in the book. During that talk, he also gives the best definition of disinformation I've heard yet.
Again, the question is who blesses the expert? There’s a difference in having a voice and your voice being taken seriously.
If someone posts a link on a a new laptop, who should respond? I am not an expert on the current laptop market, but I have options about it. Maybe my English is not the best so I run through an AI to clean it up of ambiguities or wrong wording. Maybe I say “I like to take my laptop from behind” when I meant “I lift my laptop from the back”. An AI could point out this type of error.
The sequel series was one of my favorite sets of books. It’s markedly different from Rendezvous, but I found them an enjoyable read. It was contrived at points, but the series had my favorite ending for a character.
There is a concept of “the burden or knowledge”, in that doctors know the worst thing that could happen, so they recommend the most cautious approach. My son had stomach pain one time when he was young. We took him to urgent care because it was a stomach ache. The doctor there said we needed to go to the ER because it could be an appendicitis. So we trucked to the ER. Close to $2000 later he was diagnosed with idiopathic stomach pain and told to wait it out at home.
So when I read “they then compared the platform’s recommendations with the doctors’ assessments” and see a mismatch, I wonder if it’s because human doctors are overly cautious or that the AI was wrong.
But that all pales in what could be the actual issue. I can’t read the original study, but if it use the USA, it’s understandable why people are turning to AI for Health advice. Healthcare is painfully expensive here. Even a simple trip to the ER (e.g. a $2000 stomach ache) is beyond a lot of people’s ability to spend. That’s just a reality.
With that in mind, the real questions “should I do nothing about my symptoms because I can’t afford healthcare or should I at least ask AI knowing it could be wrong”.
I feel the same way about using the Internet or books to code. I'd rather just have the source code so that I'm not dependent on anything other then my own brain.
I bought the first edition when it came out. I was just 3 years into my SW development career and it provided a lot of good advise. I bought the second edition and enjoyed it, but the first edition had a special place in my heart.
Is your complaint that it has errors? I mean look at what it can do. This is a freaking computer generating things from scratch based on a prompt. Two years ago, technology like this was so much worse and could only generate basic images and videos. Now it can generate visuals all from the text someone puts in.
Anyone, literally anyone, can use it (eventually) to generate incredible scenes. Imagine the person who comes up with a short film about an epic battle between griffins and aliens...Or a simple story of a boy walking in the woods with their dog...Or a story of a first kiss. Previously people were limited to what they had at hand. They couldn't produce a video because it was too costly. Now they can craft a video to meet their vision.
Well, yes? There's a reason why everything that was produced with these tools so far is garbage: because no one actually caring about their art would accept these things. Art is a deliberate thing, it takes effort. These tools are fine for company training videos and TikToks. Of course a few years ago this was science fiction. They are immensely impressive from a technical perspective. Two things can be true.
I’ve been a Fastmail user for years, having left Gmail. It works great and have nothing be but praise for them. I use my own domain with them so if I decide to leave it’s not an issue worrying about updating people with my new email.
The trick is in never ever touching the username@paid-main-provider.tld to give out to anyone. It's just for logging in.
My mailbox.org username is literally three random short Engish dict words concatnated by underscores (e.g jet_sit_gill@mailbox.org) just to ensure I'd never share that email with anyone. I only use my domain's email addresses. This way there's ZERO lock, zero fear of them giving my email to someone else and staying with the domain provider for a day longer than I have to.
For email addresses on others' domains here
- icloud.com came with the devices (I honestly have not thought about what happens to these if I have zero Apple device at one point in future :D)
- tutanota(barely ever used; just to support them I paid until they removed the 12/year plan)
- protonmail, and sdf.org (ARPA)
All of these at least let me hold on to the email address even with little resources when I stop paying or have an unpaid a/c. So little risk of email goign to someone else. And I never use these for anything important anyway.
For temp emails - duck.com, HideMyEmail (stopped using this one for new accounts though).
I could never get my domains hosted on sdf.org to work reliably on fastmail. It had briefly worked when MX records were set up but the moment I configured for DKIM and SPF, I haven't been able to get the service back.
I use Fastmail with my own domain. I am not sure of the logic that says paying $60/year for email is fine, but $8/year for a domain is a bridge too far.
Do that, it's a non-issue, though I do agree with you that it shouldn't be a thing (or at least have like a multiple year embargo on the address).
Using domain for identification carries a similar risk though? If for whatever reason you stop renting the domain somebody else can rent your identification. You are not locked into an email provider but you are locked into a rented domain and the whole domain marketplace rules, by extension. At least with most email providers your email address is not supposed to be resold (likely with fastmail too judging by the responses).
I think the issue is why use an email provider that has designed such a glaring security hole into their system? Does it not raise questions about their judgment in other matters that are less visible to the user?
First, it’s not been established that they do have that security hole. Someone upthread said the email address they used during a fastmail trial was no longer available when they tried to sign up later because they didn’t want to give out the address again.
Second, and I don’t know how much weight this carries - but I personally know some of the people on the Fastmail team. They’re some of the most thoughtful, steady engineers I’ve ever met. Every time I’ve criticised something about Fastmail to my friends there, it turns out they’ve had the same discussion internally and immediately tell me about a bunch of arguments I hadn’t thought of which explain their final product choices. I wish much more of my software was made at companies like that. They have excellent judgement. They’re absolutely the right kind of people to host a long lived email service.
This does not appear correct. I lost my original account in 2013 and the handle is extremely unique, and I just tried to reregister it, and it won't allow it. ("Sorry, [redacted]@fastmail.fm has already been taken.")
Are you sure you didn't confuse domains? My original handle is on fastmail.fm, but it will let me register that on fastmail.com.
I really wish all mail providers made it easy and seamless to bring your own domain (or register and manage one in the background for you, without you having to care for the details). Obviously giving a service-tied email domain to users is a great lock-in strategy. But it's worrying that so many people have a big part of their online identity tied to Google.
(You can even sign up for a Google Account without GMail, using a third-party domain. And this is distinct from Google Workspace, or whatever they're calling it today. You get a normal, regular, personal Google Account, just without GMail and using your own non-gmail.com address.)
That's incredibly dishonest reasoning. Are you seriously telling me that unless people have a solution for fixing DNS, commercial email should be free to hand out used email addresses? Seriously?
Isn't it more like fixing whois than fixing DNS? It's the name registration part while "fixing DNS" seems like it carries a lot of additional baggage that doesn't map to the "service username" space.
Now that you've said what you wanted to say about how dishonest the question is, would you like to either answer it or explain why the analogy fails to hold?
And now shadowbanned accounts are hurling insults [1]? Come on.
If it wasn't clear enough when you made your fallacious argument, and even after I called it out twice, issues with domain name registration has no bearing on the choice of commercial email providers handing out previously used addresses to anyone who asks. They can stop doing that today without having to break the internet for an unrelated issue or go through internet standards committees to do so.
In addition, email addresses handed out by commercial email providers are highly personal as opposed to your typical domain names. End users, who are oblivious to how any of this works, risk being victims of identity theft by having their previous address taken. Scammers can impersonate as grandchildren and steal from the elderly. They can take over online accounts that's tied to that email address. There are grave consequences to these kind of decisions.
This is obvious stuff to anyone who has an idea of what a domain name is. But I understand, you're "just asking questions."
Are you the type of person who thinks it's okay to dump garbage on your neighbor's lawn because governments haven't been successful at stopping pollution? Because that's the extract same rhetoric you're using.
I don't think that's true. Some years ago I did a free trial with them (did not pay anything). More recently I decided to actually sign up (for a paid account) and the email address I used for the free trial years ago was not available. I eventually got that username only after contacting support and giving them the date on which I started that free trial, to prove it was me.
Email is used a single factor (either because of magic links or forgot password flows), so the impact is much larger than getting your snail mail sent to someone else.
Also, whoever takes your old residence is probably not malicious (they just want the house because they want a house), but whoever takes your email address is much more likely to be malicious (as the acquisition cost is low and it scales).
At the very least it's weird when you consider their privacy focused marketing and the fact that it costs them like nothing to delete the data but mark that email taken.
Most prevent your username/email from being reused but restrict access or storage. From what I've seen, the delay often ranges from 30 days to years (but not guaranteed).
This way - many different providers either lock that username away and throw the key (even you can't get it again; some give you the key instead of throwing away but no space in their home until you pay again) and some just graciously offer a free plan with that address whith little or barely any resources (which is actually great and very generious of them). Which ones? Google around and you shall find.
So does mailbox do from OP. Just after some time, depending on which package you had. Eg after your light package expired, the address is free for reregistration after 90 days.
I was really happy with Fastmail as well. Before that I used ProtonMail, which was annoying because it forced me to install their bridge and use their encryption stuff.
After Fastmail I went to Migadu, and it's absolutely great. I have never seen support requests getting answers that quickly :-).
I can send as the address, and emails arrive in my normal mailbox. I also use them for giving self-hosted services their own address/password to email me.
How's migadu's email ip reputation? Also do you have to create these identities in that admin panel to use or you can use it on the go like duck.com or Apple's hide my email?
Not sure on the reputation, but I personally haven't had any issues emailing people using gmail or microsoft. They have a good DNS Diagnostics page that checks all your domains DKIM/SPF/DMARC settings.
I've been using identities created in the admin panel, but they do have subdomain addresses where everything to *@user.domain goes to user@domain, and you can configure a 'Catchall' address (and of course 'plus addresses'). I haven't used either though.
I'm in the process of switching from Gmail to FastMail. They were the only ones who met one of my requirements: Receive all email for all my domains and deliver it to one inbox with labels.
I really like that they offer a Gmail migration, including an initial import and _ongoing Inbox sync_. It only syncs the Inbox though, not spam (which is sometimes legit, especially with Gmail) or mail that gets immediately archived by a rule.
I created an alternate domain so I could try them out and perform the switch after a significant evaluation period. Since they have advanced options for figuring out which address to reply to an email with and how, it works seamlessly with gmail and with the catch-all for domains.
I could go on and on. The only thing I miss from Gmail is custom notification sounds. I don't like my email notifications having the default OS sound. Oh and you can't migrate stars/icons for emails. I wish I could do that and convert them to labels, but not a big deal.
Thanks, but I am using multiple variants of the star icons to indicate various states. I know I can manually label and migrate things, it's just not practical for me.
Like you, I am a happy long-term user of Fastmail. In addition to the excellent mail and calendar service, their tech support is top-notch: fast and generally providing the correct answer in their first communication.
Probably so. My volume is around 750k email per day roughly.
Recently they started tinkering with spam filter, which worked fairly well before. Now it doesnt work - good mails go to spam, spam garbage goes inbox. Support tried - I'll give them that - but almost all their advises were either not working or working just partially.
My guess is they integrating "AI" with spam filter, hence the quality decline.
I use just use help-> Open ticket and getting one response per day (this is to address timely responses). Granted I am in UTC+7, but from company as big as FastMail you would expect support around the clock.
I am a person who doesn't have any brand loyalty. If there's something else that's better or has the same features at the same cost, I will go for it. That being said, Fastmail has been great. Besides the unlimited domains and masked email features, I never had an issue with my emails ending up in someone else's spam folder. This is crucial to me not to lose a client or a job, or even government communications. Some might argue about security/privacy, but emails are never meant to be that medium for secure communications. Even with PGP you would still leak metadata, so if you are after security, don't use email. Other than that, I will be after reliability and ease of use features.
In particular, encrypted email provides privacy but not anonymity. You need some sort of onion routing system for that. Back in the day people would set up such routing systems for email.
It turns out that most people don't really need anonymity. That is why most systems these days don't bother the user with all the associated hassle. Briar and Session come to mind as contemporary examples of such things.
That’s the thing, you never left Gmail, since most recipients use it. You have to play by Google’s rules for deliverability across all mail providers. It cannot be “left.”
Love the keyboard shortcuts in the web interface, killer feature. Also the rules management and folder management is beyond what a lot of other similar providers offer.
What's to prevent HIV from evolving past the protection? Strains of gonorrhea (a bacteria) has evolved to get around antibiotics. Won't that happen with HIV? Or is a virus not able to adapt?
It depends on the drug but generally the principle is trying to target a part of the virus that is so fundamental to its structure that it simply cannot adapt to function without it.
The redundancy on a bacteria is degrees higher than on viruses which are extremely efficient so they're more prepared to survive if that were to happen. But it also depends on the way you're doing the drug.
That doesn't mean virus can't adapt, they do. But if you manage to hit the right pieces it might just not be possible for them to do so fast enough. Obviously finding that particular protein and figuring out a mechanism to target it while at the same time for your drug not to have undesirable side effects on the host is an expensive, long and difficult process.
For this drug in particular, it doesn't function the same way PrEP does; this targets a different protein which previously was thought to be too difficult to target but new research on it showed that perhaps there was an easier way to do it and that's how this drug (lenacapavir) came to be. However that was not the end of the story as there was also a problem on how to actually deliver the drug to the cells as the drug is relatively insoluble and isn't easily absorbed by the body so although the drug was promising when it comes to affecting the virus it didn't seem to be possible to develop a drug that could be deliverable to people. Eventually though they did figure this part out and that's how we got where we are.
But generally, to answer your question, finding the right molecule to target; a right way to target it and a right way to deliver it is really the problem when it comes to drug development, being so targeted and specific makes it extremely unlikely for the virus to develop a resistance because it would mean it has to become a whole new virus basically.
the war on retroviruses is based on taking new approaches that aren't limited by this issue, while also slowing down existing infection long enough for your natural immune system to deal with what's there.
correct that it isn't over because of this potential, but the way this one works is by targeting the capsid
the body's immune system goes after infected cells based on the coating and signature of those cells. HIV and retroviruses replicate far too quickly for our immune system to follow along, as well as experiencing rapid selective evolution within our body that eventually in nearly all scenarios results in complete immune deficiency, where the body no longer recognizes the cells as infected because they both blend in, while another population has exhausted the immune function as the body continues to fight too many infected cells. This is the AIDS part of HIV. The iteration takes a predictable amount of time to occur, but they are convergent evolutions in everyone's body.
by targeting the capsid specifically, this is destroying the container for HIV's RNA before it gets to a cell at all
this should be an evolutionary dead end, only controversial to say because its been 44 years of this, but should gain confidence in the future
- GPL is defines copyright permissions for the software code: copying, modifying, and redistributing.
- Trademark protection controls use of a name, logo, slogan, or branding.
“Notepad++” is a protected trademark, so a fork is allowed to use the GPL-covered source code any way it wants, but it can not use the trademark Notepad++ in a way that suggests it is the original project or is endorsed by it.
It would be like someone forking GnuCash from GPL code and calling then it "Quicken for Linux." The source code can be forked, but the Intuit trademark prevents someone from using the name Quicken because it could confuse users.
reply