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

Google is not the payment processor. This is about the app including a link to a donation page on opencollective.com.

Other 501(c)(6) organizations you might have heard of include the Linux Foundation and the Rust Foundation.


Do LF and Rust solicit individual donations via phone apps (or at all, really)?

Indeed, those are structured as corporate-funded consortiums of exactly the type you'd be very suspicious of if, say, your kernel or compiler logs started stuffing a donation link into the stream!

Note that GNU software does historically mention donations (not in the logs AFAIK), and indeed the FSF is a 501(c)(3).


> Do LF and Rust solicit individual donations via phone apps (or at all, really)?

"Phone apps" is irrelevant, because again, Anki was not taking donations via their app but rather via a link to OpenCollective, a separate website.

So the remaining part of your question:

> Do LF and Rust solicit individual donations (at all, really)?

Yep, the Linux Foundation has a PayPal donate button (with a simple note to U.S. taxpayers that it's not deductible): https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about/donate


> "Phone apps" is irrelevant, because again, Anki was not taking donations via their app but rather via a link to OpenCollective, a separate website.

...Irrelevant? That's the whole point. "Taking donation via a separate website (emphasis in original)" is explicitly dissallowed in the Play Store (and App Store on iOS)! There happens to be an exception carved out for federally-registered charities. But no, you don't get to just hold out a link to a tip jar.

Does this link count as a charity? No, per the structure of federal tax law. Also no, per the set of rules of the app store it's trying to be listed on. Should it count? Well, maybe I guess? Open source projects are like charities in some cases. We should all want to support them. But doing it like this, through a middle-man organization that isn't a charity, just plain smells like fraud to me. Who's doing the auditing that this is just supporting development and not profit centers? Is the IRS doing it? Not as far as I can see.


> ...Irrelevant? That's the whole point.

Then why did you throw "(or at all, really)" into your question? For the zinger, even though you now think it's irrelevant?


NixOS 25.11 was EOL a month and a half ago. Where's NixOS 26.05?


Ohh nice catch! I'll update to the latest version and republish the base images tomorrow. But in the meantime, you can also just rebuild with the flakes: https://github.com/fdmtl/machine0-nixos


Ardour does not seem to require a CLA or copyright assignment, so the maintainers don't own the copyright over contributions either way. The contributor would not be able to sue someone over a GPL violation if their contribution is public domain, but what random small contributor is going to participate in a GPL infringement suit anyway? Doesn't change the maintainer's rights to do so with any of their own human-authored contributions.


Also "The page pool is only created on a real ZCRX-capable NIC (mlx5 ConnectX-6+, Intel E800, NFP)"


Cargo will still pick the latest for transitive dependencies that aren't explicitly specified in your Cargo.toml. This is what Cargo.lock is for.


Oh good point, I didn't think of transitive dependencies. A lot of languages i've worked with unfortunately have a 'do not check in the lockfile' culture, and a common 'blow away the lockfile when the package manager gets stuck' workflow, so that does concern me. Perhaps Cargo is better than average though, and the lockfile never needs nuking, providing this safety. This sounds like a good reason to check in the lockfile! Thanks for the response.


> Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as well have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license. Public domain material is compatible with the GNU GPL.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PublicDomain


Yes, if it is clearly labeled as such, than GPL/LGPL licenced works may be included in such products. However, this relationship cannot make such works GPL without violating copyright, and doesn't magically become yours to re-license isomorphic plagiarized code from LLM.

For example, one may use NASA public domain photos as you wish, but cannot register copyright under another license you find convenient to sue people. Also, if that public domain photo includes the Nutella trademark, it doesn't protect you from getting sued for violating Ferrero trademarks/patents/copyrights in your own use-case.

Very different than slapping a new label on something you never owned. =3


> this relationship cannot make such works GPL without violating copyright

By definition, for content in the public domain, there's no copyright to be violated and no rightsholder with any recognizable/enforceable claim to IP to bring a suit. There's no IP at all.


One can't license something they never owned to other users. GPL is fundamentally a contaminating license, and LLM output can't magically become GPL/LGPL.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20260414-the-monkey-sel...

https://www.peta.org/news/monkey-selfie-case-animal-rights-f...

Indeed, people also failed to give Monkeys the right to sue for copyright enforcement. Folks seem really keen on piracy "with extra steps" these days. =3


There's no such thing as piracy of the public domain. You're either hopelessly ill-suited to grapple with this topic or you're a troll, so I won't comment further.

If you're actually sincere in your beliefs, then take the money you regularly spend on hiring those specialized IP lawyers you mentioned and get one who will provide a second opinion and provide a detailed explanation of why what you're saying here is nonsense.


You were provided with the context to educate yourself about what "uncopyrightable" means, and indeed most LLM output is >20% nonsense.

Data theft of service or piracy from the web and "AI" users content are used in the model training sets, and when codified the statistical saliency is significant if popular content is present.

For example, when an LLM does a vector search, there is a high probability of pirated content bleed-though and isomorphic plagiarism in the high dimensional vector space results. Thus, often when you coincidentally type in "name a cartoon mouse", there is a higher probability Disney "Micky Mouse" will pop out in the output rather than "Mighty Mouse". Note Trademarks never expire if the fees are paid, and Disney can still technically sue anyone that messes with their mouse.

LLM are useful for context search, but can't function properly without constantly stealing from actual humans. Thus, will often violate copyright, trademark, and patents. In a commercial context it is legally irrelevant how the output has misappropriated the IP.

This channel offers several simplified explanations of the work being done with models, and Anthropic posts detailed research papers on its website.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDdKiQNw80c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx4Tpsk_fnM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAcwtV_bFp4

I would recommend this channels "AI" project demo on the PDP-11:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUE3FSIk46g

Also, a well known case of "AI" output infringement leading to legal peril:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhgYMH6n004

One may believe whatever they like, and have a glorious day. =3


> One may believe whatever they like

Indeed.



USB devices cannot directly address host memory like PCIe or FireWire, but the XHCI controller does DMA to/from host memory, and most USB device controllers have some kind of DMA between USB and the device's RAM.


No need to pretend to be HID. Windows has WinUSB for userspace USB drivers that don't need special signing.


iirc sending HID feature reports doesn’t need admin rights on windows


No, serde-wasm-bindgen implements the serde Serializer interface by calling into JS to directly construct the JS objects on the JS heap without an intermediate serialization/deserialization. You pay the cost of one or more FFI calls for every object though.

https://docs.rs/serde-wasm-bindgen/


Indeed, you're right. However, it still needs to encode and decode strings. WASM just needs native interop.


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

Search: