

AFAIK, that’s correct, it considers serving the software as a a service as equivalent to distributing it under the GPL, so as soon as you have 1 remote user, you have to agree to distribute the code under request.


AFAIK, that’s correct, it considers serving the software as a a service as equivalent to distributing it under the GPL, so as soon as you have 1 remote user, you have to agree to distribute the code under request.


The older you get the easier it gets to abandon all streaming services to be honest.
Every high production value movie is a cliche you can guess 5 minutes in. And the few outliers get so much publicity you will probably hear about them anyway and be able to get a copy through other means.
I guess it’s also why apparently CD sales have been picking up. Easier to just rip your favorite music and listen to/stream your own collection than deal with a mess of different services.
Both the Omarchy shilling and these attempts at smearing a lot of people with the least charitable interpretation possible of their words and actions feel incredibly artificial, so I’m going to do what is best for me and ignore both.
I guess the use of the legal angle is mostly so that once the courts decide whether AI training without permission is stealing or not, there is a chance that LLM companies will have to declare all the produced code under GPL/conflicting licences and will be bankrupt overnight as they will need to retrain from scratch with allowed sources.