Can we please stop with the license crap attached to posts? It's annoying and also pointless.
this post was submitted on 14 May 2024
26 points (100.0% liked)
Programming
420 readers
7 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It will be funny when all the LLMs start posting it in their responses at least.
I mean tbh they're free to do as they wish as long as they're abiding by our TOS and guidelines
While adding a CC license on a comment is questionable on the aspect of viability, it doesn't violate any of our community rules
Please do not gatekeep unless you see justification for the prevention of something
Is it gatekeeping if they voice their disapproval? Is any form of disapproval gatekeeping? Where is the line?
They didn't ask them to stop posting or participating. Wouldn't that be the line where it crosses to gatekeeping?
They asked them not to attach the CC notice. It didn't address their content.
It feels like this needs to be managed on an instance by instance level and not post to post.
I should hope each instance has a provision for posters to grant it an irrevocable, perpetual license to what they post. All instances should. Federation should also have clear terms.
You're annoying and pointless.
Please do not make personal attacks,
- as they will not help progress your case in adding CC licenses to your post/comments
If you wish to relinquish your hope of licensed comments, you may therefore make personal attacks again. But, please direct them all at me, so as not to hurt others' feelings.
My bad.
I'm not trying to make a case for the licence. I'm just adding it to my comments yet people keep feeling it necessary to harass me about it. The list of people I've blocked for mocking me about it has become quite long. Should I start reporting them?
hmm
realistically what would happen for those reports is that warnings would be given,
- after that it would mainly depend on the reported user in question
I have a suggestion for addressing the sources of harassment
I'd like to point out a couple of main concerns:
- you might want to [figure out/explain to the public]:
- how and why adding the CC license would protect your comments/posts from LLM data collection
- when being harassed or intimidated, try not to engage/reciprocate with rage or hate [MadMax_That's_bait.gif],
- if you do it'll make you less trustworthy to outsiders peering in,
- this I learned painfully from experience
- if you do it'll make you less trustworthy to outsiders peering in,
- try to ask questions as it can help you learn truths of every situation,
- and typically the path to truth can help you figure out solutions to problems
Why are you adding it? It's not valid. You don't own the content you post online anymore. They're copies of your original content, to which you've already granted whatever license the website uses. You can't re-license those particular copies, it's out of your hands.
The poster licensing to the platform is not the same as licensing to the public.
This instance programming.dev ToS declares:
2.2. By submitting, posting, or displaying user content on our services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, distribute, and display such user content.
Distribution and displaying with attribution follows CC BY and SA. NC currently probably does - but may or may not (currently accepts donations).
The ToS only defines the license to distribute and display. It does not define how users and consumers of that distribution may or may not use the content.
So from this instance alone, there could be an argument of "the comment defines how it may be used".
But I'm not sure that holds given that federated distribution goes to other instances with different terms. For those that don't define how content may be consumed, it may be a reasonable argument. For those that define it in a conflicting manner, the ToS may override the content CC claim. Given the federated, distributed nature, given that you can reasonably expect such a conflict, there's a question of whether it holds in the first place if you can expect conflict invalidating it.
Either way, it's a convoluted mess, and incredibly noisy. Lemmy content has a language attribute. If there's a need for a license, it should be a metadata attribute in the same manner.
The ToS only defines the license to distribute and display. It does not define how users and consumers of that distribution may or may not use the content. So from this instance alone, there could be an argument of "the comment defines how it may be used".
No, there can't. If the ToS doesn't give you any permissions it means you have none.
When you post something you give the site a copy of content, under the license in the ToS. From that moment onward you lose all rights to that copy and cannot re-license or do anything with it anymore, period. It's not your piece of content anymore, it's the site's.
Your original piece of content is still yours and you hold copyright. That's the piece that you were holding on your device, in your RAM or on your disk, before you posted it. If you held onto a copy of it you have full rights to it. If you lost it after you posted it, too bad.
The site cannot re-license their copy under different terms because it doesn't hold copyright, it only holds a license (albeit under very wide terms).
Other users are not included in the license. They can't do anything with the content except what's allowed under personal use.
Did you consider OP comment harassment?
I guess the flipside of not being so public is that you get to be an asshole behind a keyboard, eh?
I keep different identities for different purposes. This identity is pretty public and active on social media, but mostly in the developer and anime sphere. This is partially born out of a desire to find other people to connect with on those topics, which makes it a worthy trade-off in my view. I also don't mind sharing what I've posted since most won't bother to look closely, and even if they do, there's not too much to find other than my interests and past projects.
Other identities serve other interests or are much more personal, so those things aren't as closely in the public eye. My more divisive or controversial takes are really only shared with trusted friends and generally not in writing though, so I might not fit the question you're posting very well, haha
I think we're similar. This is the programmer identity, which is one of many (and can hopefully not be easily tied to the others).
I also don’t mind sharing what I’ve posted since most won’t bother to look closely
Share with whom, btw?
Generally speaking, my approach is "on the internet no one knows you're a dog". I tend to containerize my activity and keep as much PII away from the internet as possible.
I have a few accounts on the fediverse because otherwise the conjunction of regional data, interests and languages would easily identify me. Not that i generally do dumb stuff (but i can easily get flagged if i touch... hot topics, you must pander to certain groups otherwise you're immediately the villain, very free the fediverse), it's just that the internet hasn't quite evolved the way i was expecting it 30 years ago and surveillance capitalism is now a thing, among other factors. I provide as little and as fake information as possible when creating accounts.
As far as the professional sphere goes, all recruiters will ever see is a simple LinkedIn profile. I don't have much time to do pet projects, unfortunately, and certainly wouldn't host them on github - forgejo and codeberg ftw.
I don't really get the code point. Like your own code written for personal projects is probably gonna be pretty high quality I'd hope? Sometimes we just write trash to get something finished but soon as I've had to change it... hell yeah I'm unfucking that mess, no way do I want to figure out what it does a second time.
Like your own code written for personal projects is probably gonna be pretty high quality I’d hope?
Does every experiment have to be formatted by a code-formatter, linted, 100% code coverage, unit, integration, and e2e tests, have full CICD, an expansive README, documentation, a project board, milestones, be published on package repositories, and a homepage? Does every post you make on the internet have references, perfect grammar, a well thought out point, and can be ready to be published in your field of work?
Um what? I didn't like hide extra meaning in what I said. High quality code doesn't imply all that extra shit you added. It's code that's easy to read and modify. Typically this just means you name stuff well and document things that aren't obvious. Usually my docs explain why something exists since thinking it's unnecessary cause you don't remember what the original problem was a common occurrence before I started doing so.
Is high quality code ran through a formatter? I'd hope so yeah. There should be a consistent code style across the entire project. Doesn't matter what it it long as it's consistent.
100% code coverage is meaningless and as such a pointless metric. Also 100% coverage is explicitly tied to the implimentaion as all code paths have to be reached which is obviously not a good idea (tests have to change when the implimentaion changes as you're testing the implimentaion not the api).
Really a lot of this is just meaningless buzz words as an attempt at some sort of gotcha. Really don't understand how you even interpreted a statement so simple in this way.
An employer is unlikely to waste time on deep candidate analysis. If they see you as a public code contributor, it's an upside in activity, experience, and conversation starter, and discussion points for any interviews. If they look at your code, it won't be deep. I doubt they would go through the effort of correlating from a public coder profile (e.g. on GitHub) to a Lemmy profile and then look at their posts.
Once they're at the point where that would be a reasonable investment, they already know you personally and don't care about online content anymore.
Maybe some big companies use online analysis tools though.
Anyway, I know what I'm worth as a developer/an employed. I don't think I post that kind of divisive or sensitive stuff that does or possibly should be related to my employment and work. If they see it as such, then I'm fine with it not being a match.
I actually think the public nature could and should be upsides. Related to work or not.