The GPL uses copyright because it’s the legal mechanism available to enforce the principles that the GPL wants to enforce. It’s entirely consistent to believe that copyright shouldn’t exist while also believing that a law should exist to allow/enforce the principles of the GPL.
I don’t think anyone but you ever said he was irrelevant, or bragged about not knowing who he was. You’re extracting a ton of meaning to a short comment which I just don’t think is actually there
https://socialblade.com/youtube/handle/asmontv says there’s over thousand youtube channels with more subscribers than him. He might well be large & influential in his niche, but it’s unlikely that people outaide his niche will know who he is. Do you think you’ve heard of 1,000 biggest youtubers whose channels aren’t about things you’re interested in?
Pewdiepie, by comparison, is the 12th most subscribed channel on youtube. I think you’re underestimating how much more famous that makes him with the general public.
#\s+ is:
#: a literal #
\s: any whitespace character (space, tab etc)
+: the previous thing (here the whitespace), one or more times
In words: “a hash followed by at least one whitespace character”
#[^\s]. is:
#: a literal #
[^\s] : a negated character class. This matches anything other than the set of characters after the ^. \s has the same meaning as before, any whitespace character
. : matches any single character
In words: “a hash followed by any character other than a whitespace character, then any character”.
https://regex101.com/ is really good for explaining regex
https://source.android.com/docs/setup/contribute/licenses says most of the Android userspace is Apache 2 licensed. While they can’t close source the Android branch of the kernel, they could close-source new userspace code and it would probably diverge from the last open source release quite quickly.
Realistically, that would probably be sufficent to make Android functionally closed-source, even if the GPL bits were still available.
And they’re not going to pay millions to be the default for a browser that no one uses.
I think multiple people already have access to the databases that store the data the device sends. I don’t really care whether they get the data from the device itself or from the database.
Similarly, I think multiple people have the ability to make changes to the firmware build and the systems that distribute it. So those people already have the potential ability to gain access to the device.
One person or multiple people having unauthorised access are both unacceptable. I’m saying that the users have to trust the companies ability to prevent that occurring, and that therefore this particular technical detail is mostly irrelevant
I’m 90% sure it is not a single user. I just don’t see how that really affects the security of the product, given that the company that sells it can already do the things the author is saying can be done if you have this key.
To be clear, I wouldn’t buy this. I just don’t think the SSH key makes it any worse than it already was
A shared account doesn’t mean everyone who works there has access to it, or that those who do have access aren’t subject to some type of access control.
The article basically goes on to say that the existence of this key makes a huge difference to the security/privacy of the product. It argues that using it, someone could access data from the device, or use it to upload arbitrary code to the device for it to run. However, those are both things the user is already trusting the company with. They have to trust that the company has access controls/policies to prevent individual rogue employees doing the things described. It seems unreasonable to say that an SSH key being on the device demonstrates that those controls aren’t in place.
The email address attached to the public key, eng@eightsleep.com, to me suggests the private key is likely accessible to the entire engineering team.
This assumption is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the authors argument that this is a big deal.
This assumes that the reviewer who gave the rating wasn’t considering value as part of their scoring. I’d expect the reviewer to be scoring a TV based on his good it is compared to similarly priced competitors, not comparing to every other TV on the market
Here’s an Olympic sprinter powering a toaster. He generates 0.021kWh going flat out: https://youtu.be/S4O5voOCqAQ
It’s a quite entitled view to take that they should make an effort to pass the project on. It would be very hard to build sufficient trust in a new developer quickly, and passing it on without that trust would be undermining the trust that users of the projects have placed in this dev. If I were him, I wouldn’t be staking my reputation on finding someone to take over from me if there wasn’t already an obvious candidate.
The successful fundraiser you mention looks to have had a target of $12k USD (from: https://discuss.techlore.tech/t/divestos-is-unsustainable-needs-community-support-we-sent-250-and-you-can-help-too/6660, the original page has been taken down), and was as a alternative to them taking a full time job. I’d say its a reasonable bet that money was spent on living expenses, and IMO $12k a year is much less than this level of skilled work is worth. It’s certainly not enough money to make it unreasonable to shut down the project a year later, and I doubt anyone who donated feels shortchanged by it.
Why would it need 5GHz? At most it needs to do two audio streams, which aren’t going to need lots of bandwidth
I don’t think it’s accurate to say that everyone can just decompile the code and reuse it. Decompiling and reverse engineering a binary is incredibly hard. Even if you do that there are some aspects of the original code which get optimised out in the compiler and can’t be reproduced from just the binary.