bitfucker

I don't think of it that way. I think the allegation of sexual harassment were ignored is false means sexual harassment report is not ignored, not that it did happen. It means there is a procedure to report it, and to handle it. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. If you just fire the accused employee before the proof is sufficient, it is also giving the accuser power to misuse the reporting procedure. Didn't like someone? Accuse them of sexual harassment.

Why do I interpret it that way? Because for sexual harassment to be noticed, it must be reported. Otherwise, how tf will the company know anything? So, a report did come, now what to do? A. Ignore it, told every party "tough shit" B. Do something and give sanction/disciplinary action if proven true

But what do I know, I am not a lawyer so I know jack shit about workplace regulation.

Calling a license by anything other than its name and stated purpose is something I’d dare to call mislabeling.

Fair point. The explanation itself has to be detached from the license to make it clear. So for example, if I state that my comment here is CC BY-NC-SA 4.0, it only states the license, WHY I licensed it as such is the explanation and not the label for the license. So yeah, without context (the why), it is mislabeling.

While you are correct that lemmy itself does not add a license and many instances do not add a license, it’s not as simple as “the user notifies [you] must abides by [their] licenses.” Jurisdiction matters. The Fediverse host content is pulled from matters. Other myriad factors matter.

But that is true for all content on the internet no? The difference is this time we are talking about a user-generated content without explicit license, now has an explicit license.

As you correctly pointed out, there is no precedence for any of this so as I pointed out unless you’re willing to go to court and can prove damages it is actually useless.

I wouldn't call it useless tho. After all, we will only push the legal framework because people are doing something wack.

It adds depth to the sheep machine does it not?

Adorkable face indeed

Why... why is it more secure? Does it mean AI training is actively abusing copyright law? And this is more secure because they can hide it better?

I wouldn't dare call it mislabelling since there is no precedent yet. Just the other day a judge ruled AI generated CSAM is still CSAM. If it can be proven beyond a doubt that an AI output comes from copyrighted works without proper license, will that AI violate the copyright? Also, will AI count as derivatives work from the training material or will it be treated like software compiler? I think a lot of our current legal framework is not up to speed to answer those questions. So I would not call it useless nor misleading.

Also, lemmy doesn't have EULA as far as I am aware of so the license of the content hosted on the instance is by default unlicensed. The user just notifies that to whoever wants to use their comment for whatever purpose, must abide by those licenses.

For facebook and big corporations, you usually agree to the ToS/EULA before you actively using their services. The clause there usually protects their ass by stating you give them the license to basically do whatever the fuck they want. Sometimes even giving up the copyright entirely, like some CLA when contributing to open source projects.

But lemmy, as far as I remember, don't have such term. So it is an interesting question since if the instance doesn't impose a legal requirement for you to give the instance a license to do anything besides storing and serving it verbatim (like many other user-content sites. deviantart comes to mind since the user can license their image iirc). And yes, words or a string of words can be copyrighted and licensed because we do have protection for books and other text material.

I am sorry but this is too funny. "If I have a dollar for every time I accidentally drive into a tornado I'd have $2. Which isn't much, but it's weird that it happened twice"

Yeah, but in the context of flatpak isn't the distribution managed by the developer themselves? Also, in the distro release version case, they usually add something distro specific to differentiate it.

This is why semver is a thing. If a program is released under 1.1.x, and then recompiled with a new compiler, then it can be 1.1.y where y > x

This also highlights the problem of extrapolating from a single data point.

Man, I miss the ork communities