--- Log opened Sun Jun 19 00:00:56 2022
01:55 -!- darsie [~darsie@84-113-55-200.cable.dynamic.surfer.at] has joined #hplusroadmap
03:14 -!- juri__ is now known as juri_
04:43 -!- spaceangel [~spaceange@ip-78-102-216-202.net.upcbroadband.cz] has joined #hplusroadmap
05:35 < TMA> what the @#$% is whackitude?
06:58 < kanzure> blinding http://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gnupg.git;a=commit;h=93a96e3c0c33370248f6570d8285c4e811d305d4
08:41 < nmz787> lkcl: MS Bob?
08:51 < lkcl> nmz787, sorry, i've lost context? (and probably some IRC chat logs), what's the acronyms "MS" and "Bob" refer to?
09:09 < nmz787> .wik MS Bob
09:09 < saxo> "Microsoft Bob was a Microsoft software product intended to provide a more user-friendly interface for the Windows 3.1x, Windows 95 and Windows NT operating systems, supplanting the Windows Program Manager." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Bob
09:09 < nmz787> you mentioned your friend Bob
09:10 < nmz787> and I didn't get that you meant the one with the last name starting with P
09:11 < nmz787> lkcl: re "who cares about trademark" or whatever I said, I mean, in the context of nmigen
09:11 < nmz787> what is the perceived harm going on ?
09:12 < nmz787> like, I feel like you are just randomly educating us on trademark law and its benefits, which is great, but also it seems like maybe you have a motive/impetus that isn't clear
09:12 < lkcl> nmz787, i have Asperger's (like many here i would hazard a guess) so tend to.. ah... "over-provide" on the answers to a question or issue? :)
09:13 < nmz787> but like, what got you started?
09:13 < lkcl> the entire issue came up when lsneff quite reasonably made an assertion "nmigen is terminated and unmaintained"
09:13 < lkcl> which, given that i am the Authorized Maintainer, under License, from the Trademark Holder, is clearly false
09:13 < nmz787> are you just upset whitequark is splintering the community and hoping to find some way to enact retribution?
09:13 < lkcl> hell no
09:14 < lkcl> i have Asperger's: i simply don't act in an "emotional way" that you might "normally" expect
09:14 < nmz787> well, fwiw, you aren't on the first page of commit history
09:14 < nmz787> https://github.com/m-labs/nmigen/commits/master
09:14 < lkcl> and because i act Ethically, i *absolutely do not* enact "retribution"
09:15 < lkcl> nmz787, the agreement with M-Labs was around... mmm... six months ago?
09:15 < nmz787> I also don't see you at all here https://github.com/m-labs/nmigen/graphs/contributors
09:15 < lkcl> and i've been using nmigen for about... 2 years
09:15 < lkcl> nmz787, 1 sec, there's some context missing, here
09:15 < lkcl> i've been a *user* of nmigen for approximately 2+ years
09:16 < nmz787> and it does look like there's been little work on it for the last year
09:16 < lkcl> funded by NLnet, the first major work that i and my team did was an IEEE754 FP pipeline ALU
09:16 < lkcl> https://git.libre-soc.org/?p=ieee754fpu.git;a=blob;f=README.md;hb=HEAD
09:17 < lkcl> but before that, we developed nmutil
09:17 < nmz787> although, against what lsneff (and some other random github committer said last week to me on an issue), being unmaintained doesn't seem like a terribly interesting reason to not use something
09:17 < lkcl> https://git.libre-soc.org/?p=nmutil.git;a=summary
09:17 < nmz787> (in the case I was dealing with last week though, the code was like 100 lines or something, so even more glaringly confusing to me on why I would care if it was unmaintained... since... the code worked)
09:17 < lkcl> nmz787, 'ang-on, 'ang-on, there's a lot to unpack here
09:17 < lkcl> yes, there is that. "unmaintained" code often "just works"
09:18 < lkcl> the most hilarious projects i know of like that are python-htmltmpl and something called kirbybase
09:18 < lkcl> which, having been written, 15-20 *years* ago, are almost unheard-of... because quotes unmaintained quotes
09:18 < lkcl> so there's no commits to speak of, therefore gosh shock horror the github ratings are low!!!!!!!!
09:19 < lkcl> so as a *user* of nmigen i and my team, sponsored by NLnet since early 2019, have created one of the world's largest python/nmigen Open Source HDL libraries
09:20 < lkcl> like many people, i had *no idea* that the Trademark had been registered, or that whitequark was violating it.
09:20 < nmz787> were they?
09:20 < nmz787> and where can I read more about that?
09:21 < lkcl> you can search online, if you really want to
09:21 < nmz787> (and is it really violation if there is no lawsuit... since inaction on the owner's part could be see as allowance)
09:22 < lkcl> yes, Trademark Law is interesting in that if you don't say anything, it can be taken to be "allowance".
09:22 < lkcl> there's a very interesting Forbes article "use it or lose it" about that
09:22 < lkcl> but the thing is that just because you've *not* received a Legal Notice does not mean that the Trademark Holder *won't* send you one
09:23 < lkcl> and that's where, for us, the risk lay.
09:23 < lkcl> that *without* that License from M-Labs, we *could* have received a Legal Notice for distributing nmigen without explicit permission
09:24 < lkcl> so, because of the *potential* threat, we sought a Trademark License and, as a huge bonus, were granted the rights as Authorized Maintainer as well
09:24 < nmz787> wait, it looks like the trademark was never approved?
09:24 < nmz787> https://uspto.report/TM/88905092
09:24 < lkcl> that meant that when we approach VCs and ask for USD 40 million, we're "in the clear"
09:24 < lkcl> nmz787, ah you have the wrong one
09:25 < lkcl> https://uspto.report/TM/88980893
09:25 < lkcl> i surmise there was a paperwork f***-up with the 1st application, i don't know: i'm not the Trademark Holder so i don't know what went on there
09:26 < nmz787> sorry, I don't get it
09:27 < lkcl> which bit?
09:27 < nmz787> if you're using nmigen, how would anything whitequark is doing affect you?
09:27 < nmz787> unless you switch to amaranth
09:27 < lkcl> if we switched to amaranth then three very bad things happen
09:27 < nmz787> wait
09:27 < nmz787> but I am asking if you didn't switch
09:27 < lkcl> 1) we lose the Trademark License
09:27 < lkcl> 2) we lose the Maintainership
09:28 < nmz787> is the point that you want to switch to amaranth?
09:28 < nmz787> for your FPU 
09:28 < nmz787> or SOC
09:28 < nmz787> why not just fork nmigen, then rebase on amaranth, and push as nmigen
09:28 < lkcl> 3) we have to notify VCs that we're potentially in breach of a Trademark (at which point they'll basically laugh in our faces)
09:28 < lkcl> because that's one f*** of a lot of work
09:28 < nmz787> umm
09:28 < nmz787> really?
09:28 < lkcl> yes
09:29 < lkcl> you have to start from a *clean* repository
09:29 < lkcl> blank
09:29 < lkcl> cut the *entire* commit history
09:29 < nmz787> that isn't how rebase works
09:29 < lkcl> do - as a source .tar.gz only - cut out EVERY mention of the Trademarked word "nmigen"
09:29 < nmz787> but you are using nmigen
09:30 < nmz787> why would you cut it out
09:30 < lkcl> then commit that new source code as a ***NEW*** repository with the new name
09:30 < nmz787> what new name?
09:30 < lkcl> any name.  you mentioned "why not just for nmigen"
09:30 < lkcl> oh wait....
09:30 < nmz787> hmm?
09:30 < lkcl> yes, i understand what you're saying, now.
09:30 < lkcl> you confused me with the word "fork"
09:30 < lkcl> so
09:31 < lkcl> to explain
09:31 < nmz787> well, git checkout -b 
09:31 < lkcl> as the Authorized Maintainer, i have been doing exactly that.  [just not as a fork]
09:31 < nmz787> I don't see your commits
09:31 < nmz787> are you doing this in non-public manner?
09:31 < lkcl> yes, that's because i did them as "git am apply"
09:31 < lkcl> so the commit history - and authors - is preserved.
09:31 < lkcl> 1 sec...
09:32 < lkcl> https://gitlab.com/nmigen/nmigen/activity
09:32 < lkcl> heck no, it's a Libre/Open Project, i'm sponsored by NLnet under their Privacy and Enhanced-Trust Programme
09:32 < lkcl> full transparency is paramount
09:32 < nmz787> I have no idea what git am does, google says something about a mailbox which just confuses me
09:33 < lkcl> it can be *used* to transfer via email
09:33 < nmz787> lol, ok, so you are using a new repo, and didn't turn off the old one, or put a redirect notice??
09:33 < nmz787> no wonder lsneff and others think it's unmaintained
09:33 < lkcl> but actually what it is, is it's a way to extract "cherry-picks" into files that can *be* emailed
09:33 < lkcl> welll...
09:33 < lkcl> deep breath...
09:34 < lkcl> whitequark is holding on to the github.com/nmigen repository
09:34 < lkcl> again, in direct violation of Trademark Law
09:34 < lkcl> and the pypi package
09:34 < nmz787> why would anyone use email for git workflow unless they're really really weird?
09:34 < lkcl> nmz787, because
09:34 < lkcl> again
09:34 < lkcl> deep breath
09:34 < nmz787> (or like on an island with lighthouse-flashes as physical layer)
09:34 < lkcl> the commit history is f*****d.
09:35 < lkcl> somebody, i have no idea who, did a f*****g-annoying git commit history rewrite
09:35 < lkcl> i *can't* perform a rebase
09:35 < lkcl> or a cherry-pick
09:35 < lkcl> or a merge
09:35 < lkcl> the only f****g way i can do it is to use "git format-patch" and "git am apply"
09:36 < lkcl> (exactly how the linux kernel is maintained, which is where i got the idea from)
09:36 < lsneff> This seems like a losing battle
09:37 < lkcl> it's basically a major f***-up situation that's massively inconvenient
09:37 < lkcl> well, the alternatives are much, much worse and much more costly
09:37 < lkcl> it's a situation we've basically been forced into.
09:37 < nmz787> actually this does have a notice, it just is sort of small (And the repo isn't archived) https://github.com/m-labs/nmigen
09:37 < lkcl> because of the sheer overwhelming quantity of code written in nmigen HDL (like, over 150,000 lines)
09:38 < lkcl> we're *forced* into the situation of becoming the maintainers of nmigen.  if we weren't the Authorized ones we'd have to be the *un*-authorized ones anyway
09:39 < lsneff> Why not just switch to amaranth again?
09:39 < lkcl> because then we have to notify the VCs that we're utilising a Trademark-infringing product
09:39 < nmz787>  rewriting 150k lines of imports and syntax it sounds like
09:39 < lkcl> at which point we're f*****d as far as seeking investment is concerned
09:40 < lsneff> It’s trademark infringing through fault of mlabs though
09:40 < lkcl> that would be EUR 300,000 and 3+ years of work
09:40 < nmz787> why not just fork amaranth, and rename it, fix the verbiage?
09:40 < lkcl> err... you can't say that a Trademark Holder is at "fault" for owning a Trademark!!!
09:40 < nmz787> then you can merge all you want
09:41 < lkcl> because *again* thats a f*** of a lot of work
09:41 < nmz787> sounds like one commit
09:41 < lkcl> hell no
09:41 < nmz787> "updated the README"
09:41 < lsneff> Yeah, just a smart regex could do all that
09:41 < lkcl> whitequark has added "nmigen is deprecated, please use amaranth" to imports
09:41 < nmz787> so remove that code
09:41 < lkcl> it took me *three weeks* to do that
09:41 < lkcl> and i'm not doing it again
09:42 < lkcl> plus it loses commit history *again*
09:42 < nmz787> I mean fork amaranth and rename it goofballHDL
09:42 < nmz787> or something smart
09:42 < lkcl> because the only Lawful way to make a fork is to completely lose all commit history
09:42 < nmz787> lkcHDl
09:42 < lkcl> you CANNOT have commits "-trademark" "+nontrademarked" in the commit history
09:42 < lkcl> because that constitutes "confusion" or "aliasing"
09:43 < nmz787> amaranth isn't trademarked though
09:43 < nmz787> right?
09:43 < lkcl> actually... it is.  it's owned by M-Labs due to the "confusion" caused
09:43 < nmz787> so just clone that, and push to nmigen gitlabn
09:43 < nmz787> git push -f
09:44 < lkcl> i'm already the Authorized Maintainer, i have everyhing i need, everything's legal for us, we're ok with our Due Diligence Declarations to VCs
09:44 < nmz787> well, anyway, good luck! I don't have any more ideas right now
09:44 < lsneff> Seems to me like mlabs backed themselves into this corner by trademarking nmigen in the first place
09:44 < lsneff> But anyway, good luck with this
09:44 < lkcl> nmz787, appreciated. as you can tell i've been through it already :)
09:45 < lkcl> lsneff, that's... like saying "it's your fault for defending yourself. you should have let me punch you"
09:45 < nmz787> I don't think that what he's saying though 
09:45 < nmz787> more like they just made things weird unneccesarily
09:46 < nmz787> if they can't maintain their own shit, then, what are they feigning to protect
09:46 < lkcl> or, and i must apologise for using this shocking example, a wife-beater "now look what you've done.  you've damaged my fist for making me punch you with it.  it's *your* fault for putting up your arm to defend yourself"
09:46 < nmz787> if there's just a temporary loss of competent employees, I guess that is another thing
09:46 < lsneff> completely unnecessary analogue
09:46 < nmz787> and if they fail as a company, well, that's business
09:47 < lkcl> nmz787, the important thing that i need to say at this point is, "i can't speak for M-Labs.  i'm not their representative, i'm not their Legal Agent" and you'd have to ask them
09:47 < lkcl> i'm just a "Licensee".
09:47 < nmz787> I guess their business strategy was flawed
09:47 < lsneff> yeah, that’s what it sounds like to me
09:47 < nmz787> if they go under, will the trademark then die?
09:48 < lsneff> open-source code is open-source, attempting to control it is a fool’s gamble
09:48 < lkcl> if we move it back to e.g. Mozilla with the Firefox Trademark, or any other large OSS Trademark, it makes sense
09:48 < lkcl> lsneff: i know.  what if the Python Software Foundation found someone trying to bring python into disrepute?
09:48 < lkcl> is it The Python Software Foundation's ***FAULT*** if they use the Trademark to defend against an attack?
09:49 < lkcl> can you say, "what idiots the PSF is for trying to use a Trademark to defend themselves, har har"?
09:49 < lkcl> (in the case of the Mozilla Foundation with the iceweasel / firefox debacle, i'd say the answer would be "yes" lol)
09:49 < lkcl> that _was_ bloody stupid :)
09:50 < lkcl> Mozilla wanted Debian to put an "advertising clause" into firefox
09:50 < lkcl> Debian said "sorry that's a violation of our Charter"
09:50 < lkcl> Mozilla said, "we insist. it's our Trademark"
09:50 < lkcl> then a huge debate went on on debian-legal trying to pick a name
09:51 < lkcl> in frustration someone said, "well for god's sake somebody come up with a name or we might as well call it "iceweasel" or something stupid, for all i care"
09:51 < lkcl> and the pro-bono Lawyers went, "that's the first name that anyone's said so we're going with that"
09:51 < lkcl> :)
09:52 < lkcl> yeaaaarrrs later, Mozilla relaxed their requirements, and fiiinally, Debian can package firefox *as* firefox.
09:53 < lkcl> lsneff, that's what everyone thinks, but it's not the case. otherwise there would not be 100+ FOSS Trademarks
09:54 < lkcl> Fedora linux git Debian Python Rust Drupal - many many more.
09:55 < lkcl> it has a purpose (i described a couple of real-world examples), it's not perfect (iceweasel stupidity, sigh, Rust non-free Trademark License, sigh)
09:55 < lkcl> bottom line is, it's a Branch of Copyright Law (Copyright, Design Rights, Trademarks/Service-Marks/Certification-Marks, Patents)
09:56 < fenn> just peeking in... i don't think trademark law requires you to scrub commit histories of any mention of the trademark, or else popular open source licenses would have clauses extending a trademark license to allow for that
09:56  * lkcl waves to fenn
09:56 < lkcl> well... it comes down to "does this cause confusion, yes or no"
09:57 < fenn> it sounds like you're making work for yourself
09:57 < lkcl> as in: are "commit histories" part of the day-to-day high-profile use that a developer would encounter and be "confused" by?
09:57 < fenn> no, of course not
09:58 < lkcl> fenn, so you've never looked at commit history on github?
09:58 < fenn> why are we talking about developers anyway
09:58 < lkcl> you've never looked at a pull request?
09:59 < lsneff> Every dev has looked at git histories before, but they wouldn’t be ‘confused’ by differing trademarks
09:59 < lkcl> because developers are users and it's users being confused that results in the Trademark Aliasing
09:59 < fenn> then say users please
09:59 < lkcl> fenn, sure
09:59 < lkcl> lsneff, if there's a commit
09:59 < lkcl> - "nmigen is an HDL"
09:59 < lkcl> + "amaranth is an HDL, formerly nmigen which is now dead"
10:00 < fenn> vs
10:00 < fenn> - "nmigen is an HDL"
10:00 < fenn> + "amaranth is an HDL"
10:00 < lkcl> no, you can't do that.
10:00 < lkcl> that's also "confusion"
10:01 < lkcl> because it gives people the false impression that there's a rename
10:01 < fenn> it's not a false impression
10:01 < lkcl> sorry, it gives the impression that the *Trademark* has been renamed.
10:01 < lkcl> and the only Authorized Entity permitted to make such a Declaration is:
10:01 < fenn> but the Trademark refers to the actual thing being renamed, which is in fact being renamed
10:01 < lkcl> the Trademark Holder
10:02 < lkcl> fenn, yyyeeessss.... mmm...
10:02 < lkcl> there is a case to be made in Trademark Law that if you cannot refer to a "thing" by any name *other* than the Trademark, this is permissible
10:02 < lkcl> however
10:02 < lkcl> that's not the case here
10:02 < lkcl> it comes down to "Confusion"
10:03 < lkcl> could anyone looking at that be deceived or confused into believing that nmigen *has* been renamed by the committer?
10:03 < fenn> well i guess i am in "Confusion" because i believe that things can have names that are not Trademarks
10:03 < lkcl> if whitequark had *explicitly sought* the permission of the Trademark Holder, and the *Trademark* holder had said, "yes you can go ahead with that rename"
10:04 < lsneff> they wouldn’t be confused that it’s been renamed by the “Authorized Entity”
10:04 < lkcl> *then* it would have been okay for *whitequark* to make that commit
10:04 < lkcl> if that commit had been made by M-Labs, *then* it would have been okay.
10:05 < lkcl> but there is more:
10:05 < lkcl> the commits actually say, "-nmigen" "+amaranth (formerly nmigen)"
10:05 < lsneff> But the commit wasn’t by mlabs and it’s clear that it wasn’t
10:05 < lkcl> which is DEFINITELY Trademark confusion
10:05 -!- Malvolio [~Malvolio@idlerpg/player/Malvolio] has joined #hplusroadmap
10:05 < lkcl> yes, and should there ever be a court case, the commit history could be used as evidence
10:06 < lkcl> that's *NOT* repeat *NOT* me making a threat!
10:06 < lkcl> i am simply stating a fact there!
10:06 < fenn> if that commit had been made by M-Labs then it would be MORE confusing, because now the Trademark holder is the one that has renamed it, creating doubt in the users' minds about whether the new name is the same brand (?) as the old Trademark
10:06 < lkcl> fenn, well, it would be very stupid of them to do that, in fact
10:07 < lkcl> and they would likely pay some more money for either another Trademark or to update the existing one
10:07 < lkcl> but it would, yes, be very stupid, because they'd confuse their own Brand
10:07 < fenn> that happens all the time
10:07 < lkcl> o dear :)
10:07 < fenn> AOL is now Oath Media, etc.
10:08 < lkcl> and that "confusion" - and the damage it causes - is precisely why it's Unlawful for an unauthorised person to do it
10:08 < lkcl> it's up to the *Trademark* holder to make that decision
10:08 < fenn> does anybody else agree with your interpretation of the law?
10:08 < lkcl> if the Trademark Holder wants to rename AOL to Oath Media, that's their decision
10:09 < lkcl> fenn, that's down to them and their Lawyer
10:09 < lkcl> i've had to become... layman-educated enough to navigate what *i* need to achiev
10:09 < lsneff> that’s not what he asked
10:09 < lkcl> i'm happy to provide other people (those willing to listen) with the usual caveat IANAL benefit of what i've learned
10:09 < fenn> if you were a trademark lawyer educating the masses, i might be more open to accepting how awful this all is
10:09 < fenn> but it seems more like a misunderstanding on your part
10:10 < lkcl> but i am NOT going to take responsibility for other people being ignorant
10:10 < lkcl> fenn, if you wish to take that position then that is entirely your prerogative.
10:10 < lkcl> i've got enough advice and information to do what *i* want to do
10:11 < lsneff> have you asked a trademark lawyer if your interpretation is correct?
10:11 < lkcl> it's down to you - your responsibility - to get advice and information about what *you* want to do
10:11 < lkcl> lsneff, that's confidential.
10:11 < fenn> it's like, if i buy a house from Bob, and move in, my name is on the deed, but people still refer to it as Bob's old house, and i don't correct them, if i put up a sign saying "fenn's house" suddenly I am in the wrong? it's ridiculous
10:11 < lkcl> fenn, of course not
10:12 < lsneff> it’s confidential if you’ve confirmed that your interpretation is correct? Please
10:12 < lkcl> that would be ridiculous
10:12 < fenn> but Bob invested the work and his reputation into making that house nice
10:12 < lkcl> lsneff, i've answered already.  the answer's confidential.
10:12 < lkcl> fenn, and then sold it.
10:12 < lkcl> and made money from it
10:12 < fenn> if fenn paints it neon green and purple, and puts up flamingoes, that reflects poorly on Bob if people call it Bob's old house
10:13 < lkcl> the "nice-ness" probably increased the financial value
10:13 < fenn> the point is, it's legal and official, fenn isn't stealing the house from Bob
10:13 < lkcl> fenn, and if there's no Trademark on "Bob's House" or the images of the flamingoes, then there's nothing that Bob - or his neighbours - can do about it
10:14 < lkcl> fascinatingly, if Bob Trademarked the flamingoes, then sued Fenn for keeping them on his house
10:14 < fenn> and likewise, with an open source copyright license, the licensee is explicitly permitted to redistribute modified copies of the copyrighted code
10:14 < lkcl> i would expect that fenn could counter-sue Bob for failing to materially disclose the existence of the Trademark at the point of sale of the house
10:14 < lkcl> ahh. yes.
10:14 < lkcl> this one
10:15 < lkcl> "it's copyrighted therefore i can blatantly ignore any Trademarked words"
10:15 < lkcl> in effect what you're saying is that:
10:15 < lkcl> the Python Software Foundation's Trademark is invalid
10:15 < lkcl> the git Trademark is invalid
10:15 < lkcl> the Mozilla Foundation's Trademark is invalid
10:15 < fenn> by going through the commit history and deleting any evidence of the original author, you're committing fraud. effectively you're saying "I wrote this" when you didn't, when you're actually a licensee
10:16 < lkcl> fenn, NO
10:16 < lkcl> that is *Copyright* Law
10:16 < fenn> if you edit the commit history to change nmigen to amaranth, but keep the author name the same, you're putting words into the author's mouth
10:16 < lkcl> ah... interesting
10:17 < lkcl> yes, that's an interesting one
10:17 < fenn> so effectively it is impossible to legally do anything without a trademark holder's permission, which goes against the entire convention of the open source world
10:17 < lkcl> but it's a completely separate branch of Copyright Law (the branch that "everyone" knows... except in China, sigh)
10:17 < fenn> (that's what your interpretation of the law says anyway)
10:18 < lkcl> so, this is probably why the FSF / FSFE explicitly advise people to put individual Copyright notices on all files, and keep them up-to-date
10:18 < lkcl> we did that religiously with samba
10:18 < fenn> it doesn't matter
10:18 < lkcl> after a particularly stupid attempt to steal the source code, back in... mmm .... 1996
10:19 < lkcl> unnfortunately there's now a common thing where people rely on the commit history
10:19 < lkcl> debian has to be extra careful about this
10:19 < fenn> why is that unfortunate?
10:19 < lkcl> with the debian/copyright file
10:19 < fenn> we SHOULD rely on computers to keep track of metadata
10:19 < lkcl> because it means that people can copy a file from one repo to another and make the mistake of *not* attributing the author, exactly as you say
10:20 < lkcl> whereas if you follow the FSF / FSFE's advice of putting a full Copyright notice (including the SPDX-License-Header in it) that can't happen
10:20 < fenn> it's not like each file is written by one developer and only one developer
10:20 < fenn> i want to know exactly which lines were written by whom
10:20 < lkcl> then following the advice of the FSF/FSFE, there would be 2+ Copyright notices
10:21 < lkcl> at this point, my knowledge of Copyright Law, about what constitutes "combined works", starts to run out :)
10:21 < fenn> usually it's considered a derivative work
10:22 < lkcl> although a pain-in-the-ass, as long as there exists metadata _somewhere_, it could be tracked.
10:22 < fenn> sometimes people add their name to a list of authors, but i never saw a clear explanation for when to do that
10:22 < lkcl> i still remember how much effort IBM had to put in to demonstrate it hadn't put anything into the Linux kernel source code
10:23 < lkcl> fenn, cygwin used to require a Copyright Assignment for even a 2-line patch
10:23 < lkcl> i heard somewhere it was between.. 5-10 lines?
10:23 < lkcl> don't quote me on that tho
10:23 < lkcl> IBM had to *literally* review the entire linux kernel source code and its commit history
10:24 < lkcl> which i understand, now, is where the precedent comes, in U.S. Law, for using git commit history for proving Copyright provenance
10:24 < lkcl> prior to that, everyone understood that you really, *really* had to put a Copyright notice on every file
10:25 < lkcl> the tnings we have to know!
10:25 < lkcl> honestly, all i want to do is develop a f*****g processor!
10:25 < lkcl> :)
10:25 < lkcl> and bring it to market and sell it in quantities 100 million and above
10:26 < lkcl> (otherwise i'm wasting my time, frankly)
10:26 < lkcl> anyway, that's quite enough typing for one day, if you don't mind? :)
10:27  * lkcl foood
10:35 < fenn> lkcl you should ask your VC to pay a lawyer to go through some of these due diligence concerns with you
10:36 < fenn> it's basically their job to do that anyway
10:51 < lkcl> fenn, there aren't any. the Trademark License from M-Labs is what we needed, and we have that.
10:51 < lkcl> we're good. appreciate you raising it though.
10:53 < fenn> CloudEvil> We're already 7/8ths of the way to becoming immortal.
10:54 < fenn> CloudEvil> We just need to work on the 't'.
10:54 < lkcl> lol
10:54 < lkcl> veery goood
10:56 -!- Malvolio [~Malvolio@idlerpg/player/Malvolio] has quit [Killed (sodium.libera.chat (Nickname regained by services))]
10:58 -!- Malvolio [~Malvolio@idlerpg/player/Malvolio] has joined #hplusroadmap
15:00 -!- L29Ah [~L29Ah@wikipedia/L29Ah] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
15:01 -!- L29Ah [~L29Ah@wikipedia/L29Ah] has joined #hplusroadmap
15:36 -!- spaceangel [~spaceange@ip-78-102-216-202.net.upcbroadband.cz] has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
15:53 -!- lkcl [lkcl@freebnc.bnc4you.xyz] has quit [Quit: BNC by #bnc4you]
15:53 -!- catalase [catalase@freebnc.bnc4you.xyz] has quit [Quit: Stable ZNC by #bnc4you]
16:04 -!- lkcl [lkcl@freebnc.bnc4you.xyz] has joined #hplusroadmap
16:11 -!- catalase [catalase@freebnc.bnc4you.xyz] has joined #hplusroadmap
16:59 -!- juri__ [~juri@79.140.115.76] has joined #hplusroadmap
17:02 -!- juri_ [~juri@79.140.114.236] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
18:00 -!- darsie [~darsie@84-113-55-200.cable.dynamic.surfer.at] has quit [Ping timeout: 248 seconds]
19:16 < kanzure> https://electriccoin.co/blog/explaining-halo-2/
19:20 < kanzure> https://docs.circom.io/
19:23 < kanzure> https://docs.circom.io/getting-started/proving-circuits/#phase-2
19:27 < kanzure> https://github.com/iden3/circomlib/tree/master/circuits
19:27 < kanzure> i'm confused about this line https://github.com/iden3/circomlib/blob/cff5ab6288b55ef23602221694a6a38a0239dcc0/circuits/sha256/main.circom#L31
19:54 < nmz787> lkcl: well, I guess this is generally on par for expectations of relying on open-source (i.e. not being entitled to support or anything), so it seems like this might be a "dead horse" issue?
20:01 < nmz787> AOL is dead for all intents and purposes, for like 20-25 years
20:02 < nmz787> Oath media sounds wholly different... there is no "'you've got mail' web portal" anymore, which is what any normie would link to "AOL"
20:05 < nmz787> this all sounds like will smith at the grannies and "keep my name out ya mouth"
20:35 < nmz787> lkcl: interesting about iceweasel/firefox/debian... I'm not sure if I really knew this before. I'm sure to have looked up what iceweasel was, and saw it was based on firefox... but likely ignored it or uninstalled it with firefox anyway
20:56 -!- DrZl5 [~DrZ3lu5@2804:56c:c344:7000:51d4:2f45:a855:e032] has joined #hplusroadmap
21:11 -!- DrZl5 [~DrZ3lu5@2804:56c:c344:7000:51d4:2f45:a855:e032] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
21:22 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: jrayhawk, otoburb, streety, acertain
21:22 -!- Netsplit over, joins: streety
21:22 -!- Netsplit over, joins: jrayhawk, otoburb
21:22 -!- Netsplit over, joins: acertain
21:27 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: saxo
21:27 -!- Netsplit over, joins: saxo
21:30 -!- Netsplit *.net <-> *.split quits: s0ph1a, EnabrinTain, RubenSomsen, livestradamus, potatope
21:30 -!- livestradamus [~quassel@2a01:4f8:1c1c:3189::1] has joined #hplusroadmap
21:30 -!- livestradamus [~quassel@2a01:4f8:1c1c:3189::1] has quit [Changing host]
21:30 -!- livestradamus [~quassel@user/livestradamus] has joined #hplusroadmap
21:30 -!- Netsplit over, joins: potatope, EnabrinTain
21:31 -!- Netsplit over, joins: s0ph1a
21:31 -!- Netsplit over, joins: RubenSomsen
21:45 < nmz787> request for info: evolution of the eye theories
21:45 < nmz787> anything out there which might have some experimental potential?
21:47 < nmz787> a friend isn't convinved that simple mutation would be enough, and has been looking for stronger confirmation/refute, of that or other theories like i.e. symbionts joining forces 
21:49 -!- SDr5 [~SDr@li1189-192.members.linode.com] has joined #hplusroadmap
21:50 -!- ^ditto` [~limnoria@crap.redlegion.org] has joined #hplusroadmap
21:53 -!- SDr [~SDr@user/sdr] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
21:53 -!- ^ditto [~limnoria@crap.redlegion.org] has quit [Ping timeout: 272 seconds]
21:53 -!- ^ditto` is now known as ^ditto
21:54 < nmz787> (and by experimental potential, I mean stuff like forming organoids or something, and then injecting one into another...)
21:54 < nmz787> etc
22:57 < fenn> a pit blocks out light from most angles, which creates the ability to do angular discrimination. the pit gets deeper, and puckers upwards to make a pinhole. eventually the pinhole part gets covered over with transparent goop which acts like a lens. after more iterations the transparent goop becomes transparent solid and can get larger to gather more light. meanwhile, the light gathering cells are
22:57 < fenn> differentiating and forming fovea etc
22:58 < fenn> "pit vipers" still have the primitive pit organs used to sense heat because a pinhole surrounded by hot flesh is not very good contrast
22:59 < fenn> perhaps some sort of actively cooled covering layer could have evolved, but it hasn't yet
23:10 < fenn> iirc you can force drosophila to recreate some of the older stages in eye evolution by knocking out various developmental genes
--- Log closed Mon Jun 20 00:00:57 2022