Notices by Bobby Moss (bobstechsite@bobadon.rocks), page 5

Bobby Moss (bobstechsite@bobadon.rocks)'s status on Saturday, 29-Sep-2018 07:07:36 EDT Bobby Moss
- Thomas, Computer Wrangler
@thomasfuchs something to do with coaxial networking?

In conversation Saturday, 29-Sep-2018 07:07:36 EDT from bobadon.rocks permalink
Lynneoweenie:coochified: (lynnesbian@deadinsi.de)'s status on Saturday, 29-Sep-2018 01:21:31 EDT Lynneoweenie:coochified:

the english alphabet has 21 letters and also the greek alphabet has 23 letters right?
oh wait i forgot: U R A Q T π

In conversation Saturday, 29-Sep-2018 01:21:31 EDT from deadinsi.de permalink Repeated by bobstechsite
Bobby Moss (bobstechsite@bobadon.rocks)'s status on Friday, 28-Sep-2018 19:40:29 EDT Bobby Moss
in reply to
- Eliot: unleashed
@eliotberriot or code all your tests to AssertNotNull so they'll always pass!

In conversation Friday, 28-Sep-2018 19:40:29 EDT from bobadon.rocks permalink
Bobby Moss (bobstechsite@bobadon.rocks)'s status on Friday, 28-Sep-2018 19:39:09 EDT Bobby Moss
- r҉ustic cy͠be̸rpu̵nk🤠🤖
@cypnk on the upside, it is a renewable resource 👍

In conversation Friday, 28-Sep-2018 19:39:09 EDT from bobadon.rocks permalink
Privacy.FYI (privacy@mastodon.privacy.fyi)'s status on Friday, 28-Sep-2018 18:35:29 EDT Privacy.FYI

LoL “ #Facebook is blocking users from posting stories about its security breach” #DeleteFacebook
https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/28/facebook-blocks-guardian-story/
In conversation Friday, 28-Sep-2018 18:35:29 EDT from mastodon.privacy.fyi permalink Repeated by bobstechsite
Attachments
1. Facebook is blocking users from posting some stories about its security breach
  
  By Taylor Hatmaker from TechCrunch
  
  Some users are reporting that they are unable to post today’s big story about a security breach affecting 50 million Facebook users. The issue appears to only affect particular stories from certain outlets, at this time one story from The Guardian and one from the Associated Press, both reput…
Bobby Moss (bobstechsite@bobadon.rocks)'s status on Friday, 28-Sep-2018 18:30:30 EDT Bobby Moss
- Mike Stone :ubuntumate:
@mike it does feel a bit counter to the idea of free software tbh.
One of the four freedoms is the freedom to do whatever you want with the code and software without restrictions.
If they really have a problem with the code of conduct (i.e. governance) they're better off forking. But I think the reason they're acting out is they know the version that has paid corporate developers contributing will succeed without them.

In conversation Friday, 28-Sep-2018 18:30:30 EDT from bobadon.rocks permalink
Mike Stone :ubuntumate: (mike@fosstodon.org)'s status on Friday, 28-Sep-2018 18:22:14 EDT Mike Stone :ubuntumate:

Take backsies? As a non-lawyer, I would understand it to be no. Maybe someone more experienced in legal matters can elaborate on the situation?
"Can You 'Take Back' Open Source Code? | Hackaday"
https://hackaday.com/2018/09/27/can-you-take-back-open-source-code/
In conversation Friday, 28-Sep-2018 18:22:14 EDT from fosstodon.org permalink Repeated by bobstechsite
Attachments
1. Can You “Take Back” Open Source Code?
  
  By Tom Nardi from Hackaday
  
  It seems a simple enough concept for anyone who’s spent some time hacking on open source code: once you release something as open source, it’s open for good. Sure the developer might decide that future versions of the project close up the source, it’s been known to happen occasionally, but what’s already out there publicly can never be recalled. The Internet doesn’t have a “Delete” button, and once you’ve published your source code and let potentially millions of people download it, there’s no putting the Genie back in the bottle.
  
  But what happens if there are extenuating circumstances? What if the project turns into something you no longer want to be a part of? Perhaps you submitted your code to a project with a specific understanding of how it was to be used, and then the rules changed. Or maybe you’ve been personally banned from a project, and yet the maintainers of said project have no problem letting your sizable code contributions stick around even after you’ve been kicked to the curb?
  
  Due to what some perceive as a forced change in the Linux Code of Conduct, these are the questions being asked by some of the developers of the world’s preeminent open source project. It’s a situation which the open source community has rarely had to deal with, and certainly never on a project of this magnitude.
  
  Is it truly possible to “take back” source code submitted to a project that’s released under a free and open source license such as the GPL? If so, what are the ramifications? What happens if it’s determined that the literally billions of devices running the Linux kernel are doing so in violation of a single developer’s copyright? These questions are of grave importance to the Internet and arguably our way of life. But the answers aren’t as easy to come by as you might think.
  
  Copyleft and Ownership
  
  The GPL is what’s known as a copyleft license, which is designed to add additional rights for the end users which would otherwise be limited by copyright laws. For example, it gives the user the right to duplicate and create derivative works. But an important distinction is that copyleft licences such as the GPL don’t actually replace the original copyright, they are merely supplemental. The original author of the code still holds the copyright, and is ultimately its sole owner.
  
  This allows for the concept of dual licensing: wherein the sole author of a program can chose to license a program under multiple licenses at the same time, one of which generally being more permissive than the other. For example, the Windows version of a program could be closed source, while the Linux version is open source; even if the actual code is identical. More often, this is used to provide one license that applies for commercial use of a program, and more permissive licensing for individuals.
  
  Some open source projects, generally large ones with corporate backing, occasionally have what’s known as a Contributor License Agreement. This document explains any additional requirements and rules for submitting source code to a project, and will usually have a clause explaining that the submitter is granting their copyright to the project’s parent entity. For example, here is the relevant section from Google’s “Individual Contributor License Agreement”:
  
  Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to Google and to recipients of software distributed by Google a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works.
  
  It’s worth noting that Linux does not utilize such an agreement, and the copyright for any submitted source code therefore remains the property of the original developer.
  
  Reputational Losses
  
  So if a developer is free to license their code in diametrically opposed ways (simultaneously closed and open source), and it’s acknowledged that in the absence of a Contributor License Agreement they retain the uncontested ownership of any code they write, the situation becomes tricky. Does it not follow that they have the right to walk back a promise to make their source code open, if a scenario presents itself in which the author feels it’s no longer appropriate?
  Eric S. Raymond
  Eric S. Raymond, one of the founders of the Open Source Initiative and author of The Cathedral and the Bazaar believes they may have that right. In a post to the Linux Kernel Mailing list, Eric specifically addresses the threat some developers have made about attempting to pull their code from the kernel:
  
  First, let me confirm that this threat has teeth. I researched the relevant law when I was founding the Open Source Initiative. In the U.S. there is case law confirming that reputational losses relating to conversion of the rights of a contributor to a GPLed project are judicable in law. I do not know the case law outside the U.S., but in countries observing the Berne Convention without the U.S.’s opt-out of the “moral rights” clause, that clause probably gives the objectors an even stronger case.
  
  Section 6 of the Berne Convention explains that the original author of a work, even if they have granted their rights to another entity, can object to its further use if they feel it has been utilized in a way which “would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.” So in theory a disgruntled developer need only convince a judge that the maintainers of a project have damaged their reputation, say by publicly banning them for violating the Code of Conduct, and have a case for forcing the project to stop using their code regardless of preexisting licensing agreements.
  
  Critical Language
  
  But the question remains, can a developer actually “revoke” the rights given under the GPL? If we’re talking about the GPLv2 (which Linux is licensed under), the closest thing we find is Section 4:
  
  However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
  
  Interestingly, if we take a look at the GPLv3, we see relevant language was made much stronger:
  
  All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met.
  
  Some believe the distinction here may prove to be critical. In a legal context, it’s generally understood that “revoke” means an agreement was retracted by the entity offering it (here, the original developer), while “terminate” simply means to end an agreement. This leaves room for interpretation, and one could potentially argue that since the GPLv2 does not specifically state the developer can’t retract the offer, it remains an option.
  
  Here Be Dragons
  
  Between the Eric S. Raymond’s assertion that a developer could claim divisive elements within the project are damaging to their reputation and the fact that the current licensing arrangement of Linux means there’s no specific language saying developers can’t withdraw their submissions, the situation becomes murky. The truth is, nobody is really sure yet. We’re in uncharted waters, and old assumptions may not hold up to legal scrutiny if it comes to it.
  
  It’s also worth mentioning that the concept of “Promissory Estoppel” could come into play; which essentially prevents an individual from going back on a promise if the other party took action based on that promise. In other words, if you told somebody they could use your code and they used it to produce a successful project, you can’t then go back on that promise because it would be to their detriment.
  
  Practically speaking, even if an individual built a case saying they wanted their chunk of code removed from Linux, it would be physically impossible. In lieu of being able to delete their code from the now-copyright-infringing devices, said developer would likely receive some monetary settlement. Which would still be a terrible precedent to set for the open source community: get mad, get paid.
  
  At the end of the day, talk of revoking open source licenses is misguided. To paraphrase the character of Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park: angry developers are so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they haven’t stopped to think if they should. If legal precedent is set that a developer can take their source code back, it will be ruinous to the open source community. Its taken decades for free and open source software to rise to its current prominence in the software world, but the rash actions of a few unhappy developers could be enough to drag it back down to being little more than a wishful idea.
seldo (seldo@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 28-Sep-2018 18:18:15 EDT seldo

Oh, I know what will improve the volatility of the cryptocurrenices: creating the ability to short them, and allowing people to lend them to each other. https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/27/short-ethereum-zrx-bat-rep/
In conversation Friday, 28-Sep-2018 18:18:15 EDT from mastodon.social permalink Repeated by bobstechsite
Attachments
1. Compound launches easy way to short cryptocurrencies
  
  By Josh Constine from TechCrunch
  
  Think Ethereum and other crypto coins are overvalued? Now you can make money when their prices fall via Compound, which is launching its money market protocol for shorting cryptocurrencies today. The Coinbase and Andreessen Horowitz-funded startup today opens its simple web interface allowing users…
Finn (finn@cybre.space)'s status on Friday, 28-Sep-2018 11:37:00 EDT Finn

#linuxmemes

In conversation Friday, 28-Sep-2018 11:37:00 EDT from cybre.space permalink Repeated by bobstechsite
NeoTheFox (neothefox@mastodon.technology)'s status on Thursday, 27-Sep-2018 03:09:43 EDT NeoTheFox

#_

In conversation Thursday, 27-Sep-2018 03:09:43 EDT from mastodon.technology permalink Repeated by bobstechsite
Julian Bond 🍸 (jbond@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 28-Sep-2018 13:28:55 EDT Julian Bond 🍸
- Bobby Moss
@bobstechsite Down with this kind of thing.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/09/27/yes-facebook-is-using-your-2fa-phone-number-to-target-you-with-ads/

In conversation Friday, 28-Sep-2018 13:28:55 EDT from mastodon.social permalink Repeated by bobstechsite
Bobby Moss (bobstechsite@bobadon.rocks)'s status on Friday, 28-Sep-2018 13:27:07 EDT Bobby Moss

That being said, not having a Facebook account sadly doesn't protect you from their data leaks.
Friends & family that continue to use it are still feeding the beast. Also, they buy data on people from brokers like Experian and create shadow profiles based on their automated systems.
It continues to annoy me that regulators haven't been tougher.

In conversation Friday, 28-Sep-2018 13:27:07 EDT from bobadon.rocks permalink
Bobby Moss (bobstechsite@bobadon.rocks)'s status on Friday, 28-Sep-2018 13:20:32 EDT Bobby Moss
in reply to

For those interested in what was broken, it was the "View as..." tool. A vulnerability was used by malicious hackers to hoover up user data that would otherwise have been private.
If you're still using Facebook even after the Cambridge Analytica scandal, maybe you should stop!

In conversation Friday, 28-Sep-2018 13:20:32 EDT from bobadon.rocks permalink
Bobby Moss (bobstechsite@bobadon.rocks)'s status on Friday, 28-Sep-2018 13:17:57 EDT Bobby Moss

Up to 50m Facebook accounts attacked, and the company once again apologises and says "your security and privacy are really important to us" 🤦♂️ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45686890
In conversation Friday, 28-Sep-2018 13:17:57 EDT from bobadon.rocks permalink
Attachments
1. Up to 50m Facebook accounts attacked
  
  from BBC News
  
  Attackers exploited vulnerability in a feature known as "View As", the social media giant says.
Bobby Moss (bobstechsite@bobadon.rocks)'s status on Friday, 21-Sep-2018 13:03:02 EDT Bobby Moss
- Linux Liaison :ubuntu:
@brandon and yet Tron still fights for them 🤷♂️

In conversation Friday, 21-Sep-2018 13:03:02 EDT from bobadon.rocks permalink
Thomas, Computer Wrangler (thomasfuchs@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 31-Aug-2018 18:49:43 EDT Thomas, Computer Wrangler

Missing friends from Twitter? Reach out to them and invite them. Try multiple times.
Give them good reasons too, like this amazing picture of precariously stacked Commodore disk drives.

In conversation Friday, 31-Aug-2018 18:49:43 EDT from mastodon.social permalink Repeated by bobstechsite
layney butterfly ~ (fluttergirly@chitter.xyz)'s status on Friday, 31-Aug-2018 13:37:46 EDT layney butterfly ~

fuck the idea that people enjoying certain harmless things is annoying, your life is your own and you get to enjoy it how you want

In conversation Friday, 31-Aug-2018 13:37:46 EDT from chitter.xyz permalink Repeated by bobstechsite
Anatoly Shashkin💾 (dosnostalgic@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 31-Aug-2018 18:36:50 EDT Anatoly Shashkin💾

Don't ever text me anything important

In conversation Friday, 31-Aug-2018 18:36:50 EDT from mastodon.social permalink Repeated by bobstechsite
Bobby Moss (bobstechsite@bobadon.rocks)'s status on Friday, 31-Aug-2018 18:24:58 EDT Bobby Moss
- Mr. Matt :debian: :linux:
@matt what a coincidence! My wired mouse is also a Logitech...
(I should probably buy an actual mouse mat instead of using the back of a notebook when I'm using my laptop in my living room... 😅)

In conversation Friday, 31-Aug-2018 18:24:58 EDT from bobadon.rocks permalink
Bobby Moss (bobstechsite@bobadon.rocks)'s status on Friday, 31-Aug-2018 18:21:13 EDT Bobby Moss

Oh sweet USB mouse, how I've missed your tender connectedness and grace...

In conversation Friday, 31-Aug-2018 18:21:13 EDT from bobadon.rocks permalink

After
Before

Public

Notices by Bobby Moss (bobstechsite@bobadon.rocks), page 5