SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
kolie has been hard at work producing a logical line for line copy of rehash (written in perl) in Python - including warts where they affect the functioning of the software. This will ensure that the software remains maintainable into the future, and gives kolie a chance to fix some previously unknown bugs.
PyHash is currently running on dev.soylentnews.org. Please take a look and report any problems / observations / comments in kolie's journal. This software is still under development as kolie explains. If you cannot log in with your usual username/password you might have to create a new account on dev.
This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Questionable day.
Ask somebody something.
(Score: 2) by kolie on Thursday June 04, @06:42PM (5 children)
https://git.ennwise.com/soylentnews/rehash/ [ennwise.com]
(Score: 2) by Bentonite on Friday June 05, @12:57AM (4 children)
It doesn't seem you read the ethical repository evaluation page - if the github frying pan is unacceptable, clearly the worse gitlab fire is more unacceptable.
I will not support what is wrong - I will not develop and send patches to you if those will be merged onto github or gitlab.
If you;
a) Specify which changes are wanted.
b) State how patches will be accepted and merged in some moral way (I can put changes on and provide access to a cgit for hosting, provided that will be used rather than github or gitlab).
Then I'll send patches, otherwise I a) can't and b) won't.
(Score: 2) by kolie on Friday June 05, @01:40AM (2 children)
It's a self-hosted instance you got an issue using my self-hosted gitlab instance?
(Score: 2) by Bentonite on Friday June 05, @06:54AM (1 child)
All versions of gitlab are proprietary software, for 3 reasons.
0. The way the license is written only licenses the client side JavaScript under MIT expat once it is in obfscript form - the source form is not licensed unless it is "served directly"; https://lab.vern.cc/gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/master/LICENSE [lab.vern.cc]
Therefore any file that is not served directly in source form (as far as I can tell, no source file is served "directly" - only via indirect methods), that doesn't have another license on it, has no license and therefore is proprietary software.
It would have been easy to write
so the choice of wording seems intentional.
1. Even assuming that the client side JavaScript was validly licensed under a free license, the issue is that any software that is served via arbitrary remote code execution is rendered proprietary, as the user does not have the 4 freedoms over the software;
- The user cannot realistically choose to read or check the software before running it - all they get is huge obfscript blobs, that appears to be different every time.
- The user cannot realistically choose to keep running an older version - as soon as the page is refreshed, the old version is gone and there's only the new version (maybe the existing version is the same until the admin updates the software, or it's every page load, if the software is designed to randomize obfscript JavaScript each time like gitlab.com (maybe gitlab ce is the same)).
- The user cannot realistically run a modified version (browsers totally lack tooling to do so and extensions like greasemonkey and Haketilo unfortunately doesn't have the required capability to make programs as big and complex as gitlab's client side JavaScript work).
2. gitlab is slopware and slopware is proprietary software, as copy-pasting random code and combinations thereof in disregard of the license(s), always results in proprietary software; https://lab.vern.cc/gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/master/CLAUDE.md [lab.vern.cc]
It appears that all functionality JS git forges offer can be implemented better without JavaScript (see cgit for example).
Hmm, maybe I'll write a decent git forge, with free issue submission and pull requests (forejo comes close, but falls short).
(Score: 2) by kolie on Friday June 05, @06:19PM
A file served directly - doesn't specify the means. Technically the git served it directly to me when I downloaded it. If it was served directly it is licensed. It doesn't magically become unlicensed once it stops being served. The intent is clear, whether obfuscated or not, the file in any form once licensed is valid. I'd be required to let everyone know if I distributed it that it's under MIT expat, obfuscated/optimized/original or otherwise. But yea you made your yak shaving clear and moving the goalpost so I'll let you get to that. gnu.org says it's ethical what I am doing so idk about you but you appear to have a problem with JavaScript as a whole and directing me to the gnu.org when the use case specifically is said to be fine is hilarious. glwt.
(Score: 2) by kolie on Friday June 05, @03:28AM
Just so we are clear - this is from the own source you linked:
"We refer to these services by their domain names, rather than their common names (eg: savannah.gnu.org vs. Savannah). That is because the software for most of these services is also available for self-hosting as free software. Installing that software on your own server, and using it yourself, avoids most of these ethical issues (all but A1).
Therefore, here we address the ethics of the service operators."