Technically they don’t own the code itself (because it’s open source), but if that’s your metric then no FOSS project can be meaningfully owned by anyone.

That’s what I mean. You could fork the entire codebase today and start your own thing. Yes, that would be a massive undertaking, but we’re not talking about volunteers trying their hand at being Red Hat, we’re talking about governments with real resources to throw at it.

And I agree that no FOSS project can be meaningfully owned by anyone. That’s kinda the point. The larger community allows “ownership” for various reasons, but many projects can be and do get forked and spun into different things.

I hate that you’re probably right.

Nobody has yet provided a good reason why this matters. Red Hat doesn’t own Fedora, and RHEL is downstream from Fedora. You could fork it in whatever country you live in and start a new project if you wanted to.

What is so important about these downstream ties that it taints the entire project? (I’m really asking, by the way.)

Why do you think so?

Potato

Fucking hell, how many times is this dumb idea going to rear its ugly head?

Removed by mod

I don’t really get the hate for US-based FOSS. Corporations? I get it, and I’m here with popcorn to watch them suffer. But few if any are profiting if you decide to use Fedora (for example), unless you take issue with Red Hat’s downstream involvement. Most other projects don’t benefit any corporation and are hobby projects put out there for the public good.

Avoiding Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and the like makes lots of sense, as does investing in your local economy, but FOSS is open by design, and it thrives through global participation. Seems to me like tossing the baby out with the bathwater, otherwise.

Fedora

No, I understand just fine. You’re ignoring the part where I said rights aren’t actually fundamental or intrinsic. They’re privileges society treats that way, and like other privileges, they can be taken away.

In any case, if you go to a well-known Nazi bar on purpose, what does that make you? People who go to 4chan on purpose aren’t innocent victims, and their potential loss of privacy is justifiable considering how much harm has come just from there.

If you use your rights (i.e. social privileges) to purposely cause harm, or to support platforms or causes that are well-known to cause harm, there should be consequences.

Nope. If you intentionally cause harm to others with said rights. See my reply to someone else who made a similar assumption.

https://reddthat.com/comment/18075681

let’s work toward making these institutions not rely on or be beholden to governments.

I don’t see how that’s possible unless you use a system that’s resistant to governments (or moneyed interests). And the only systems like that are effectively outside their government’s power or jurisdiction. Otherwise, the right mix of ambitious or greedy people could eventually cause it to crumble.

Did you have some other kind of system or plan in mind?

Oh? I’m not that familiar with his comedy, but I probably should get to know it. What little I know I like!

I prefer the platinum rule of humanism, but essentially, yes.

All rights are privileges, if we’re going to be pedantic. This is evidenced by the fact that they can be taken away. Society tends to operate on an unspoken, collective agreement that certain rights should never be violated, but if they were actually intrinsic, we wouldn’t have to fight tooth and nail for them.

I’m a moral relativist, so if someone is happy to abuse their right to privacy to harm others or otherwise take their rights away, especially the right to privacy, I don’t feel any compunction to draw a hard line and say that the harmful person deserves to keep those rights in spite of their actions.

Good. Privacy is a fundamental right, but since that platform is regularly used to doxx people who are simply trying to exist, in addition to platforming and incubating some of the most harmful ideologies, they’ve relinquished any claims to those rights to privacy, as far as I’m concerned.

We need a single source of truth for this.

So distribute it, like DNS. Have the CVE Foundation be the final authority, but relying solely upon them makes me uneasy.

The CVE Foundation might currently be independent from the US government, but that doesn’t mean they’re not still subject to its whims. I think people underestimate just how awful things are or could get here, and “why is the government doing that stupid/heinous/bizarre thing” has become a daily mantra for many.

CVE needs better protection from hostile governments, and distributing the system seems like the only way to achieve that

That’s good, I guess, but decentralize it. It’s a tool used globally with global ramifications, so other countries should be able to run their own instance of it. That way, if an instance goes down, nobody else is left without it.

Over the coming days, the Foundation will release more information about its structure, transition planning, and opportunities for involvement from the broader community.

Hopefully that includes decentralization on the roadmap.

It’s not mentioned at all in the article, so what you inferred from the headline is not what the author conveyed.

Sure, and I’m sympathetic to the baffling difficulties of English, but use Google Translate and ask someone who’s more fluent for help with the final polish (as a single suggestion). Trusting your work, trusting science to an LLM is lunacy.