Thanks. Very interesting. I’m not sure I see such a stark contrast pre/post 9-11. However, the idea that the US public’s approach to the post-9-11 conflict would have an influence makes sense and isn’t something I’d ever have considered on my own.

Me too, but I’d put Usenet in there before Slashdot.

The South. Just below Indiana, the middle finger of the South. And I say this as a Hoosier for much of my life.

Does the GPL cover having to give redistribution rights to the exact same code used to replicate a certain build of a product?

It does, and very explicitly and intentionally. What it doesn’t say is that you have to make that source code available publically, just that you have to make it available to those you give or sell the binary to.

What Red Hat is doing is saying you have the full right to the code, and you have the right to redistribute the code. However, if you exercise that right, we’ll pull your license to our binaries and you lose access to code fixes.

That’s probably legal under the GPL, though smarter people than me are arguing it isn’t. However, if those writing GPLv2 had thought of this type of attack at the time, I suspect it wouldn’t be legal under the GPL.

I believe you are correct. Any paying Red Hat customer consuming GPL code has the right to redistribute that code. What Red Hat seems to be suggesting is that if you exercise that right, they’ll cut you as a customer, and thus you no longer have access to bug fixes going forward.

I suspect it’s legal under the GPL. I’m certain it violates the spirit of the GPL.

I am not a lawyer, but I have been a follower of FLOSS projects for a long time.

Me too. I know what I’m suggesting is functionally impossible. I’m wondering if it could be done in compliance with the GPL.

All of those contributors have done so using language that says GPLv2 or higher. Specifically says you can modify or redistribute under GPLv2 or later versions. So nothing stops the Linux Foundation from asking new contributors to contribute under the GPLv4 and then releasing the combined work of the new kernel under GPLv4.

The old code would still be available under the GPLv2, but I suspect subsequent releases could be released under a later version and still comply with original contributions.

Again, I know it won’t happen, just like I believe Red Hat’s behavior is within the rules of the GPL. I’d love to hear arguments as to how Red Hat is violating the GPL or reasons why the kernel couldn’t be released under GPLv3 or higher.

I suspect what Red Hat is doing is compatible with GPLv2, which is how the Linux kernel is licensed. I’m certain what they are doing is inimical to the Intent of GPLv2.

That raises some questions and possibilities. It looks like the Linux kernel still has the GPLv2 or later clause, despite not moving to GPLv3. See https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.18/process/license-rules.html

How possible is it to create a GPLv4 that addresses this? Building a new license that does shouldn’t be difficult. However, I’d assume the Linux kernel isn’t released under a GPLv3 or later because of some objections with those changes. I’d imagine creating a GPLv4 that addresses the Red Hat issue but leaves out the changes in GPLv3 is likely a non-starter because those that have chosen a GPLv3 or later license will object.

Given the thousands of contributors to the Linux kernel, is an upgrade to a GPL version higher than v2 even possible? I’ve got no idea, but I’m curious of any insights.

Upvotes and downvotes.

Right now, I can browse by New on my subscribed communities and see every post since the last time I did that.

I can view or re-view posts and read every response. If the responses are legion, I can play with hot/top and get the meat of the discussion.

Did you notice that last sentence? On the few posts where there are too many responses to view all, I’ll try to get at those that are relevant.

If the Lemmy community grows large enough, I’ll need to do the same for posts. I will no longer be able to regularly view by new and have time to see everything.

So, I’ll need to rely on some sorting method to make certain I see relevant stuff.

Someone with millions of bots that never post have millions of upvotes and downvotes to influence the score used by the sorting algorithm that I’ll use to decide what to read.

But aren’t thumbnails local?

Part of what prompted my question is that I doubt I have the correct worldview because I believe I’m influenced.

Yeah, my hope is the small learning curve to join the fediverse means we don’t end up with the bulk of the active posters on reddit.

My fear is that Lemmy is about to see some attacks the fediverse isn’t ready to defend against.

Yeah, Usenet is what my brain mapped Lemmy to. You get your feed and post through your server. You read posts from others on other servers. Each local server decides what feeds it will carry.

Of course, there’s no central hierarchy for the communities like Usenet had.

Very interesting.

Great to hear!

That’s my guess too if Lemmy takes off. I’d imagine some will be obvious enough that everyone defedrates from that server, stranding the legit users. I’m not sophisticated enough to know how to defend against this, but I’m intrigued by the concept.

But again, that’s if you are viewing the community via the server you are subscribed to. For me, that would be https://sh.itjust.works/c/apple@lemmy.ml for the community and https://sh.itjust.works/post/8299 for the direct link. I just see 5 posts, which is less than either the original or the server OP is on.

My language settings shouldn’t matter when viewing servers I’m not logged in with. I do have both English and Undefined checked and only see 5 posts on that thread in sh.itjust.works.

The person you are replying to deleted the comment. That said, as I understand it, comments are federated once someone on a server subscribes. So, not all comments will be federated. However, stuff listed in the comments here would seem to break my understanding of how federation works. I’m very curious to hear the answers.

No problem. You’ve probably been here longer than me. We’re all trying to figure this out. The question reveals issues I wasn’t aware of. You actually mentioned something that would be relevant in some situations that taught me something. I was just pointing out that I didn’t think your suggestion applied here.

All of us Reddit refugees are trying to figure out the nuances. I appreciate your comment because it taught me something new.

But, that should only matter when viewing via a logged in server. Those two links are to communities directly on servers. I suppose it’s possible no one on lemmy.sdf.org has subscribed to that community. That could explain the original question but doesn’t explain the example posted by @caio@sh.itjust.works example of https://lemmy.ml/post/1136642 vs https://lemmy.fdvrs.xyz/post/1436

(How do I get a link to reference a comment that works everywhere?)

I’m also curious about how it works with a mix of subscribed communities. When I sort my subscribed comments, Hot seems similar (identical?) to New. Active does give me interesting stuff, but hides things I’d be interested in from smaller communities.

I’d like a mix that gives me those more popular posts I’m interested in, but also gives me the less active posts from smaller communities.

You’d need some way of calculating a scaled score of each post in each separate community, then providing a method of sorting all posts using that scaled score. That is, some way to realize a post in a 100 member community with 25 upvotes and 200 comments may be more relevant in a subscriber list compared to a post with 200 upvotes and 100 comments in a community of 10,000.

Of course, I’m not sure I’d want the same scoring mechanism used in all as opposed to subscribed. I want to see the niche but interesting stuff in my subscribed communities. I’m not sure I want that when looking at all, or at least not to the same extent.