>Today’s incident shows that the Internet has not yet eradicated the problem of BGP route leaks. It also reveals that China Telecom, a major International carrier, has still implemented neither the basic routing safeguards necessary both to prevent the propagation of routing leaks nor the processes and procedures necessary to detect and remediate them in a timely manner when they inevitably occur.
What incentives do they have not to route data from foreign adversaries through their networks? :')
Colloquy. Desktop version more or less hasn't been touched in 8 years, and it remains the best Mac client. Also has an iOS version that is more recently maintained.
Sad times we live in that you have to say it twice that you don't oppose feminism, otherwise you know your comment will get flagged, which means your opinion will simply be hidden away. That is the state of the debate, if we can even call it a debate.
Yeah, to be honest, I would like to elaborate more but I don't want my account banned. Best we can do is hint at our opinions and hope that it fosters some thought and debate
>How about applying for a license before launching a website?
You don't have that, but in Germany and Austria you must include your full name and address in any website you publish, which creates sort of the same effect.
It does have the same effect of chilling unpopular speech, but not to the same degree. And crucially, at least the license-granting body cannot deny the license.
Some days I wonder if my brain is just wired significantly differently than most people. These single letter shift typos rarely even register in my mind. Hell, my mind registers words with 2-3 letters off perfectly fine. What usually gets me is when sentence structure is significantly off, not this kind of stuff.
I don't understand why are there so many proponents of the AGPL when it's one of the most restrictive and therefore against freedom licences there are.
It removes developer freedoms in order to ensure user freedoms; claiming it is "against freedoms" is like saying the Bill of Rights--which restricts the acts of government--is "against freedom".
It's the opposite thing because there usually are a thousand users for every developer, so you're restricting the freedoms of 1000 people to defend the freedom of 1 person. While there's 1 government official whose freedoms are restricted for every 1000 people (made up numbers but you get the point)
In this metaphor developer == government official and users == citizens, so you should agree with GP.
Again, AGPL restricts what developers can do with software to let users enjoy more freedom.
Actually I don't care much about that, I just don't want to see companies come and exploit developers work without having to give back anything. So I really favor GPL and AGPL. Then, if somebody prefers BSD and MIT, no hard feelings.
Please re-read your parent's point. By your own logic, if no.(users) > no.(devs), then it makes sense to prioritise freedoms(users) > freedoms(devs), which is precisely what the AGPL does.
All it does is ensure copyleft works with software as a service, in which you don't even get a binary that you could, with GPL, request the sources for.
Similar to how my freedom to shoot you is restricted by your freedom to be safe. There is no such thing as a licence that protects every freedom for everyone.
Because for some people, open source is not about freedom of use of the software, but freedom of source. They feel that existing FOSS licences can't protect against modification without release in the case of cloud usage, so they use this licence to protect the openness of modification.
What incentives do they have not to route data from foreign adversaries through their networks? :')