seg 08 jun 2026 às 15:48:23 (1780944503), [email protected] enviou: > Hi André, > > On 2026-05-29 at 20:42-03:00, André Batista wrote: > > sex 29 mai 2026 às 11:21:10, Nguyễn Gia Phong enviou: > > > Let's take another example, if C gives us a car P from manufacturer S, > > > while insisting that it doesn't happen ever despite S saying > > > P fails to brake 1% of the time, would you trust C and ride P around? > > > What would any court thinks if you hit someone with P > > > and blame C's assurance? Of course, it would be a different scenario > > > if C withheld the car's model. > > > > So, as I understand it, you are implying that in this situation, if > > manufacturer S advertises selfdriving car model P as the solution to > > car accidents as they remove the human error factor ("the safest car > > ever sold, you must buy it now!") and then sells a billion cars which > > would cause ten million of accidents throughout the world every 3 > > months they could avoid any liability by virtue of inserting a clause > > in their contracts saying "we can't promise that car model P won't go > > berserk, run accross children on streets, run off clifs or > > selfexplode"? And that if I had bought one of these cars I would > > become liable for these accidents[?] > > Yes, if you were aware of that clause and decided to drive it anyway, > and to be pendantic, it closer to "we are aware of car model P > _occasionally_ going berserk [...]". > > On 2026-05-29 at 20:42-03:00, André Batista wrote: > > and even after selling it to you I'd remain liable in [your] place? > > No, then I'd be liable instead, when I chose to drive it. > > S should be held liable for all its frauds, but we citing > its false advertisements as an excuse to do something we know > to be wrong is just pure malice. >
To be clear: what you are advocating for here is known as "pacta sunt servanda"[1]. It is an ancient principle of law that is based on religious precepts that affirms the sancticity of contracts. From Modernity onwards, Humanist views and the Enlightment continued to support it on the basis of the notion of that abtracted, perfected man, lord of himself, dealing with other lords when entering into contracts. Guess who were benefited most by this miopic, reactionary view? Yes, that's right, the bourgeoisie and their companies. Why? Because by standing on that blindness to social reality they could claim that workers were entering into labor contracts that did not afford them the means of living by their own volition and free will. That consumers were agreeing with terms and conditions and could be held liable by them because they agreed to them. That conveniently ignored the _extreme_ power imbalances on those relations where capitalists were free to _impose_ clauses, terms and conditions upon those who were on precarious situations. So, starting at the begining of last century this principle of civil law was weakened in order to better protect workers, consumers and vulnerable groups from abusive contracts[2]. Who's the big tech booster again? > On 2026-05-29 at 20:42-03:00, André Batista wrote: > > sex 29 mai 2026 às 11:21:10, Nguyễn Gia Phong enviou: > > > If big tech boosters want to change to status quo and incorporate > > > LLM outputs along with their risks into free software projects, > > > they should present their evidence and do the convincing. > > > > I object to singling out and name calling users of these services. > > Also, my idea was just that: leave a narrow opening through which > > people can present their evidence and try to convince the rest that > > this tech has some usefulness and that the risks can be mitigated. > > I was calling people boosting services can only be provided > by mega tech corporations and maybe some governments by their actions, > and I assume they actually truly believe such adoption > is for the greater good. I'm happily awaiting their evidence > besides their personal experience with the SaaSS. > Yes, and you are conveniently ignoring social realities and raising the bar to entry into our community to only those who are privileged enough to be _able_ to decide going without mobile phones because "blobs". You are singling out people and name calling them because we're all free to do according to our consciousness and moral compass, right? If someone "decides" to use some technology, they "decide" it based on their own free will and autonomous volition. Right, tell me about privilege. To me, what you are truly doing is attacking people who we want to be on our side and standing by reactionary views on the individual, morality and the law which are benefitial to the status quo of that same big tech power you claim to be confronting. > I'm happy to receive news from Denis that GNU is asking to > > > not include new code/data generated by LLMs > I'm appalled by Denis' conduct and the lack of raction to it. I think receiving messages from an emissary of some hidden chambers is demoralizing to the whole idea of having an GCD. What's implied here? That GCD's can be overruled by some hidden, unmotivated reasoning comming from outside. It would be fine if they relayed some article or post that exposes their reasoning so that we can appreciate and decide based on it. But saying "they are asking to do such, no reasons given" reeks of secret police, totalitarian regimes and inquisition. One of the many things that made me admire Ludo is that they explicitly refused to be chief guixance, dictator for life, and took many measures to limit their own influence as a charismatic leader. Very much different from some other famous figures who are known to have become selfserving and to have abused their own position instead of caring for the community. > On 2026-05-29 at 20:42-03:00, André Batista wrote: > > Also, what does it mean to secure our software freedom? To me it > > means having user rights recognized by law, constitutions and human > > rights treatises. It means abolishing intellectual property rights > > over source code. It means making it unlawful to furnish binary > > blobs without source code and documentation. It means making it > > unlawful to provide hardware without publishing its datasheets and > > designs. It means having public oversight over any SaaSS offered > > to the public. > > I agree with all these, but we can only work with what we have, > which currently is copyleft. Giving up on the possibility > of enforcing it without the mentioned utopia being present > is just unwise IMHO. > Let's quote the article you've linked: "Once a weaker idea sets in, however, it may be much harder to displace than the one it already displaced, especially if those that promote the weaker/partial goal oppose and publicly promote the rejection of the higher goal." The weaker idea is the GPL which is a compromise with an unjust law that allows for the privatization of the commons. The stronger idea it the one I've mentioned above. I'm not asking for "giving up on the possibility of enforcing it", I'm saying enforcement has to be strategical, instead of being just some blind abidance to the law. If our stronger goal is to abolish intellectual property, it is poor strategy to try and strenghten it so as to keep the old hack working. BTW, have you read that github litigation piece? The argument they use is that training LLMs on FLOSS code amounts to software piracy. Nice, huh? > On 2026-05-29 at 20:42-03:00, André Batista wrote: > > In order to get there, we'll need massive popular support and this > > support will not be gained by secluding ourselves on a free software > > island of novena laptops. It will not be gained by calling people > > "useds". It will not be gained by shutting people out unless they > > mirror us in all ways of behaving and thinking. > > Thanks, this made me chuckled a bit, and I feel called out. > While we do need as much support as possible, I'm wary of policies > that appear popular yet alienating our movement's exist base. > There's no going back after welcoming LLM into our project with > open arms, and honestly it's become incredibly daunting to dodge > big tech's influences across most free software projects lately. > No one is pleading for welcoming it with open arms, read again. > See also _stricter is less popular_ by Alexandre Oliva: > <https://blog.lx.oliva.nom.br/2026-02-22-stricter-is-less-popular.en.html> > Did you happen to read their other post[3] linked on this one? There they spouse another reactionary view on law and society by claiming that social change is not democratic. You know, they use democracy as equal to the simple majority rule whereas for at least a century democracy is understood not as the rule of majority but as the system that provides protections to the minorities and those who are vulnerable. Human rights cannot be removed from the law by a majority vote, they can only be extended. The majority vote is only a formal process of decision making which takes places for decisions which are not related to fundamental principles of the system. AKA, you cannot democraticaly put to vote wether people want to establish a dictatorship. So the correct reasoning is not claiming that social change is undemocratic, and thus favoring individual moral purity and unflinching adherence to a learder (you know, like nazis), but that the fundamental rights of democracy on a digital world must encompass the right to knowledge, users rights on software and culture at large, the break down of power concentration and that democracy nowadays can only survive if those rights are recognized and properly enforced. Cheers! 1. <https://www.jstor.org/stable/2195750>. Unfortunately paywalled and I must obey that sacrosanct law of copyright, right? 2. <https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52000AE1424> 3. <https://blog.lx.oliva.nom.br/2026-02-01-social-change-is-not-democratic>
