Hi MSavoritias,
MSavoritias skribis:
> So since the Guix community have agreed to make it welcoming to
> everybody we have to take into account people that will want to change
> their names.
As I wrote earlier, several Guix contributors changed names in the past.
As a project, we always
Hello,
Ian Eure skribis:
> HuggingFace and the StarCoder2 model is in violation of principle 2.
> By their own admission, they are including code without clear
> licensing[1]:
[...]
> HuggingFace is also in violation of the third principle, because they
> haven’t established a functioning
On 2024-03-18 12:08:48 +, Daniel Littlewood wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I think the discussion so far splits into "should something be done"
> and "what can be done". The "should something be done" is easier to
> address, I think, so I'll deal with it first. I particularly have
> Attila's reply
On Mon, 18 Mar 2024, Kaelyn wrote:
> On Monday, March 18th, 2024 at 2:28 AM, Simon Tournier
> wrote:
[...]
>> That’s the double sword of “free software”. :-)
>
> Hi,
>
> I want to stress that I am not a lawyer, but my (possiblibly outdated)
> understanding of what machine learning models can
Simon Tournier writes:
Hi,
On sam., 16 mars 2024 at 08:52, Ian Eure
wrote:
They appear to be using the archive to build LLMs:
https://www.softwareheritage.org/2024/02/28/responsible-ai-with-starcoder2/
About LLM, Software Heritage made a clear statement:
> It pretty easy to see who most people that use Guix agree with that
> actually. Check what the CoC says right here
I believe that Guix can continue to achieve a welcoming, harassment-free
environment even if we're not able to support repo authorship history
modification. (Or non-destructive
On Tue, Mar 12, 2024 at 11:12 AM Efraim Flashner
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 11:48:53AM -0500, Jason Conroy wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 3:08 AM Efraim Flashner
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Until then
> > > I've been experimenting by manually listing the other crates I've
> needed
> > > but
On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 3:08 AM Efraim Flashner
wrote:
> The transitive dependencies getting pulled in automatically should work
> automatically if we ever finish the antioxidant-build-system.
Since you bring up antioxidant, I'm kind of curious whether that stalled
mainly due to shifts in
Hi Kaelyn,
The legal question is unsettled, and there is ongoing litigation by
(at least) Matthew Butterick in the US, since at least 2022. The
reasonable positions I'm aware of are:
1. An LLM (or, more precisely, the set of weights that define it) is
not a derivative work of its training data,
On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 4:06 AM Efraim Flashner
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 09:24:29PM -0500, Jason Conroy wrote:
> > Hello Efraim,
> >
> > Thanks for investigating this - a Rust development workflow using only
> > Guix-native crates is something I've been waiting for!
> >
> > I was
Hi everyone,
I think the discussion so far splits into "should something be done"
and "what can be done". The "should something be done" is easier to
address, I think, so I'll deal with it first. I particularly have
Attila's reply in mind.
> let's put aside the trans aspect of this question for
I am transgender and plan to contribute to Guix soon. Mostly submitting
packages and so on. I never saw any violation of the code of conduct,
but this does not mean they do not exist.
On Mon, 2024-03-18 at 20:26 +0200, MSavoritias wrote:
>
> On 3/18/24 20:16, Tomas Volf wrote:
> > On 2024-03-18
On 3/18/24 20:16, Tomas Volf wrote:
On 2024-03-18 18:48:27 +0100, Vivien Kraus wrote:
The guix users, I claim, would rather have a distribution of guix (and
the packages it provides) with accurate personal information, even if
it means to be annoyed for a moment with a security system.
On 2024-03-18 18:48:27 +0100, Vivien Kraus wrote:
> The guix users, I claim, would rather have a distribution of guix (and
> the packages it provides) with accurate personal information, even if
> it means to be annoyed for a moment with a security system.
Single data point: As a Guix user (and
Hello,
Free software enables cooperation in a free society. More precisely, it
makes it easy for a user of a package to use a new version where the
personal information has been corrected. The thread in [1] questions
our handling of potential cases where a transgender contributor of Guix
or one
On Monday, March 18th, 2024 at 2:28 AM, Simon Tournier
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On sam., 16 mars 2024 at 08:52, Ian Eure i...@retrospec.tv wrote:
>
> > They appear to be using the archive to build LLMs:
> > https://www.softwareheritage.org/2024/02/28/responsible-ai-with-starcoder2/
>
>
> About
Hi Simon,
Sorry for the really long delay, I meant to reply after I'd had a good
read through the conversation you linked, but I haven't had a chance to
really get into it yet, but I have read enough to get a surface idea of
the project. The project looks fun, and looks like it will help Guix
On 3/18/24 17:14, Andreas Enge wrote:
Am Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 04:33:49PM +0200 schrieb MSavoritias:
Actually gitlab already is facing something like that and they are doing
what was proposed elsewhere: mapping of UUIDs to display names
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/20960
Am Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 04:33:49PM +0200 schrieb MSavoritias:
> Actually gitlab already is facing something like that and they are doing
> what was proposed elsewhere: mapping of UUIDs to display names
> https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/issues/20960
Interesting, thanks! It is something that
Lars-Dominik Braun writes:
>> I have heard folks in the Guix maintenance sphere claim that we
>> never rewrite git history in Guix, as a matter of policy. I believe we
>> should revisit that policy (is it actually written anywhere?) with an
>> eye towards possible exceptions, and develop a
On 3/18/24 16:19, Andreas Enge wrote:
Am Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 04:03:20PM +0200 schrieb MSavoritias:
Rewriting history is the wrong question imo. I dont think a request to
change all of the history of Guix will be accepted anyway.
A much easier thing to do is to change the approach in the
Hi MSavoritias,
On lun., 18 mars 2024 at 16:00, MSavoritias wrote:
> I think you have misunderstood that here we are talking about
> I think you have misunderstood that here we are talking about
What if? Maybe it’s you. Maybe you, “you have misunderstood that here
we are talking about […]”.
Am Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 04:03:20PM +0200 schrieb MSavoritias:
> Rewriting history is the wrong question imo. I dont think a request to
> change all of the history of Guix will be accepted anyway.
> A much easier thing to do is to change the approach in the future. And let
> all the past history
On 3/18/24 15:35, Andreas Enge wrote:
Hello all,
Am Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 12:26:18PM +0100 schrieb Simon Tournier:
Therefore, it would be more constructive if you come with a
proof-of-concept allowing “history rewrite” and strong “software
identification” property
the one thing I can think
On 3/18/24 15:12, Simon Tournier wrote:
Hi MSavoritias,
On lun., 18 mars 2024 at 13:47, MSavoritias wrote:
As advice for the future when somebody says a concern or wish they have,
your first statement shouldn't be "but its legal" because that
completely dismisses any constructive
Hello all,
Am Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 12:26:18PM +0100 schrieb Simon Tournier:
> Therefore, it would be more constructive if you come with a
> proof-of-concept allowing “history rewrite” and strong “software
> identification” property
the one thing I can think of, and which would allow time travel
Hi MSavoritias,
On lun., 18 mars 2024 at 13:47, MSavoritias wrote:
> 1.
>
> You seem to be misunderstanding the statement here that was said.
>
> What you can do legally and what you can do socially are not always the
> same thing.
I do not read where I wrote something like that but anyway.
On 3/18/24 11:28, Simon Tournier wrote:
Hi,
On sam., 16 mars 2024 at 08:52, Ian Eure wrote:
They appear to be using the archive to build LLMs:
https://www.softwareheritage.org/2024/02/28/responsible-ai-with-starcoder2/
About LLM, Software Heritage made a clear statement:
Hi,
On lun., 18 mars 2024 at 12:10, MSavoritias wrote:
> The right of a trans person to ask a project to not advertise their
> deadname was never in question.
>
> Guix is a place that supports trans people and anybody else that wants
> to change their name.
There is a difference between
Hi MSavoritias,
Could you please stop to propagate tangential or opinionated views?
Please hold your horses.
You wrote several times, about Software Heritage:
> being also transphobic.
[…]
> I would go a step further actually. Software Heritage
Hi,
On sam., 16 mars 2024 at 08:52, Ian Eure wrote:
> They appear to be using the archive to build LLMs:
> https://www.softwareheritage.org/2024/02/28/responsible-ai-with-starcoder2/
About LLM, Software Heritage made a clear statement:
Hi,
On sam., 16 mars 2024 at 08:52, Ian Eure wrote:
> I was also distressed to see how poorly they treated a developer
> who wished to update their name:
> https://cohost.org/arborelia/post/4968198-the-software-heritag
> https://cohost.org/arborelia/post/5052044-the-software-heritag
This
The guix-daemon does the hashing, so guix-daemon would have to be fixed
to override integrity checks (and it would have to be patched
retroactively in every time-travel). Noone likes touching guix-daemon
(until it is rewritten in Guile), so I can imagine it would be
frustrating.
Now ftfy is not
On 3/18/24 02:10, Attila Lendvai wrote:
I was also distressed to see how poorly they treated a developer
who wished to update their name:
https://cohost.org/arborelia/post/4968198-the-software-heritag
https://cohost.org/arborelia/post/5052044-the-software-heritag
let's put aside the trans
Am 17.03.24 um 18:35 schrieb Ludovic Courtès:
https://issues.guix.gnu.org/issue/69554
Also, isn’t ‘BUILD_TESTING’ a convention rather than a flag CMake always
honors?
Yes, it's more like a convention, as the patch says: "Anyhow, the
CMakeLists.txt needs to implement handling this flag."
Do
35 matches
Mail list logo
