, so it’s in the public domain and they’re free to do with it whatever they want, and they would legally be right.
What do you base this "all AI code is public domain by legal definition" on?
, so it’s in the public domain and they’re free to do with it whatever they want, and they would legally be right.
What do you base this "all AI code is public domain by legal definition" on?
Being asked to gesture words I don't know, or Nierenfunktionsstörung and other long German words like that 😅☠️
I do hate that all these features are yet more keywords and weird syntax. It’s becoming C##.
It's called sharp because you can cut yourself. /s
Like them.
They have their downsides, so they're no more than an alternative to other approaches. They can condense code and concerns in some cases. The more complex the type is, the less obvious the primary constructor parameters become.
Is it bent like that because you can bend stuff in the app?
A meta analysis is an interesting reaction to, or should I say founded in, the post title. But we better let go.
"early stages", "could not verify", "company did not respond", "considers making available for purchase"
That's neither solid news, nor a real or full GitHub alternative.
The CLA can never override the code license. It handles the transition of your code into their code, and what they can do with it. But once it's published as AGPL, you or anyone else can fork it and work with it as AGPL anyway. The CLA can allow them to change the license to something different. But the AGPL published code remains published and usable under AGPL.
I'm usually fine with contributing under CLA. A CLA often make sense. Because the alternative is a hassle and lock-in to current constructs. Which can have its own set of disadvantages.
A FOSS license and CLA combination can offer reasonable good to both parties: You can be sure your contribution is published as FOSS, and they know they can continue to maintain the project with some autonomy and choices. (Choices can be better or worse for others, of course.)
That
/unsaved/{id}path with a unique server-assigned identifier means your diff content was transmitted to and stored on their servers.
Not necessarily. URLs can be changed client-side, within the browser, through JavaScript. The fact that the URL changed to unsaved alone is no proof. It could very well be browser-local, labeled unsaved and held in session store for example, ready to be saved.
With the other indications, you can of course make a guess and/or consider it a strong indication.
It should be pretty obvious/observable when observing interaction and network requests within the browser. A network request with the content as body would be much better proof.
It's in the name after all. 1 regex, 0 other stuff, and 1 com.
I'm a bit confused by them publishing their personal essays on their htmx project page. This essay certainly doesn't have anything to do with htmx directly. Either way, valuable content and possibly their strategy to get people to htmx, or reuse a domain and website they already have.
AI-generated art not being copyrightable doesn't necessarily mean AI-generated art can't violate original copyright, though.
This is not about AI-generated code being relicensed to different AI-generated code. It's about the original licensed code being relicensed or otherwise violated through AI-generated code.