Dave. Good day. On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 00:26:12 +0100 Dave Cridland <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2025 at 00:00, Elle > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > - IANAL, but the use of any of the XSF materials is covered by > > our IPR statement and I believe that explicitly allows any such use > > as training LLMs. I don't see this as a negative for the XSF. This > > doesn't negate concerns for *other* organizations or projects. > > > > > > I understand that given the licensing, LLM training may be > > permissible. That wasn't the point. As an org, and personally, I do > > not want to contribute to a technology largely designed to destroy > > my profession. Unfortunately, a number of projects I care about are > > still hosted on platform owned by one of the biggest developers of > > LLM tech. > > > > You mentioned before that contributors are free to mirror XSF/XMPP > > repos on other platforms. This sounds like a good first > > contribution for our org. I'm willing to put in the work to mirror > > the repos, and try to coordinate any issue triage that gets > > submitted on the mirrors. > > > > > Absolutely, go for it. But at the moment, the bulk of the effort has > gone into supporting our use of Github, so unless there's real > critical mass in what you're attempting, you may find it results in > no change. > It appears that "critical mass" does not occur at once, even though it should, similarly to online video games in which people want to have a server full with players at once, otherwise they leave very fast instead of patiently waiting for more to join. So, there should be a possibility to communicate with the current server of choice from other servers. Once more people would utilize that different system, we would be able to switch from the current server to other servers. > > > > > - It is very demotivating for people working on this to get side > > line opinions without actual ongoing involvement. > > > > > > Apologies if this sounded like sidelining, that wasn't my > > intention. I was giving voice from my perspective on why *I* am > > demotivated from contributing to projects hosted on Github, and > > offered some viable alternatives. > > > > > And I get that. But I also get that Github is easy to find, and saves > the (overworked) team a lot of work. Github isn't great, but burn-out > is far worse. > > > > > > - I will not go into my personal opinions on political, > > societal, or ethical choices or opinions, by anyone or any > > corporation, here. I do have them, as many here can attest, and > > they usually go with a beverage in a private, in-person setting. > > > > > > Right, because FOSS, decentralized communication platforms are > > completely apolitical, and detached from society. There's obviously > > no ethical considerations, either. Mind backdooring OMEMO for any > > government that asks? > > The technology does what the technology does. > > Some people might (probably do) use OMEMO to hide unethical and > illegal things from governments, too. Governments themselves use XMPP > for all kinds of things, and I'm sure that you may well have opinions > on which of those are ethically aligned with your beliefs. > > The communications platform *is* apolitical. It does not distinguish > between "bad" things (like enabling C&C systems for malware) and > "good" things (like rapid triage of pressure sores). So people use it > for both. > > What you (or I) choose to support is up to us - the protocol has no > views, and I'm broadly with Ralph on saying that carries over to the > XSF. > > And to be sure, I can't see myself engaging if a bunch of malware > authors started working on improvements to the protocol to support > their use cases, and if governments started asking for backdoors in > OMEMO, I assume you'd not help them either. But they're welcome to > try, I suppose. > > Dave. _______________________________________________ Standards mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
