legal: children and general public friendly content #17

Open
opened 12 months ago by kreyren Β· 22 comments

DISCLAIMER: i ain't your lawyer and this ain't legal advise

Assuming https://git.dotya.ml/dotya.ml/community/issues/14 resolved i think that it would be inapropriate to allow minors to access gore, pornographic material, etc..

In addition to that dotya could be in theory liable for showing gore to "weak-minded" people to which it may cause a ptsd aldo i would think this to be hard to prove in the court.

**DISCLAIMER:** i ain't your lawyer and this ain't legal advise Assuming https://git.dotya.ml/dotya.ml/community/issues/14 resolved i think that it would be inapropriate to allow minors to access gore, pornographic material, etc.. In addition to that dotya could be in theory liable for showing gore to "weak-minded" people to which it may cause a ptsd aldo i would think this to be hard to prove in the court.
Owner

DISCLAIMER: i ain't your lawyer and this ain't legal advise

Assuming https://git.dotya.ml/dotya.ml/community/issues/14 resolved i think that it would be inapropriate to allow minors to access gore, pornographic material, etc..

In addition to that dotya could be in theory liable for showing gore to "weak-minded" people to which it may cause a ptsd aldo i would think this to be hard to prove in the court.

this, too, should be a part of CoC maybe..
I don't want people to host gore stuff here.
they're welcome to host code here, though.

> **DISCLAIMER:** i ain't your lawyer and this ain't legal advise > > Assuming https://git.dotya.ml/dotya.ml/community/issues/14 resolved i think that it would be inapropriate to allow minors to access gore, pornographic material, etc.. > > In addition to that dotya could be in theory liable for showing gore to "weak-minded" people to which it may cause a ptsd aldo i would think this to be hard to prove in the court. this, too, should be a part of CoC maybe.. I don't want people to host gore stuff here. they're welcome to host code here, though.
Poster

this, too, should be a part of CoC maybe..

The liability should be in ToS as CoC is from my point of view non-binding agreenment in between community members.

Where ToS should be legally binding.


I don't want people to host gore stuff here.
they're welcome to host code here, though.

What about code that handled gore stuff or porn like https://github.com/deeppomf/DeepCreamPy

> this, too, should be a part of CoC maybe.. The liability should be in ToS as CoC is from my point of view non-binding agreenment in between community members. Where ToS should be legally binding. --- > I don't want people to host gore stuff here. they're welcome to host code here, though. What about code that handled gore stuff or porn like https://github.com/deeppomf/DeepCreamPy
Owner

this, too, should be a part of CoC maybe..

The liability should be in ToS as CoC is from my point of view non-binding agreenment in between community members.

Where ToS should be legally binding.


I don't want people to host gore stuff here.
they're welcome to host code here, though.

What about code that handled gore stuff or porn like https://github.com/deeppomf/DeepCreamPy

so the tos should be neat and concise - here are 3 rules, you break them, you're done.

> > this, too, should be a part of CoC maybe.. > > The liability should be in ToS as CoC is from my point of view non-binding agreenment in between community members. > > Where ToS should be legally binding. > > --- > > > I don't want people to host gore stuff here. > they're welcome to host code here, though. > > What about code that handled gore stuff or porn like https://github.com/deeppomf/DeepCreamPy so the tos should be neat and concise - here are 3 rules, you break them, you're done.
Poster

you break them, you're done.

Banning in Open Libre software development only results in harming the ecosystem, i would specify course of action per ToS violation and handled the content apropriately to that to not affect the user account unless local law forces us to do so.

E.g. Publishing gore -> Forcing the repository to be private with a legal notice somewhere around untill the gore is made to comply with ToS/CoC

> you break them, you're done. Banning in Open Libre software development only results in harming the ecosystem, i would specify course of action per ToS violation and handled the content apropriately to that to not affect the user account unless local law forces us to do so. E.g. Publishing gore -> Forcing the repository to be private with a legal notice somewhere around untill the gore is made to comply with ToS/CoC
Owner

You are trying to solve a non-existent problem here. Anyone is welcome to host any code, regardless of what is its purpose or output. As long as the repo does not contain explicit imagery (or other potentially illegal content) itself, there is no reason for anyone to do anything about it.

Ad "harming the ecosystem" - hosting content that breaks the law or goes against common decency does not benefit any ecosystem in the slightest, so this point is moot.

You are trying to solve a non-existent problem here. Anyone is welcome to host *any **code***, regardless of what is its purpose or output. As long as the repo does not contain explicit imagery (or other potentially illegal content) itself, there is no reason for anyone to do anything about it. Ad "harming the ecosystem" - hosting content that breaks the law or goes against common decency *does not* benefit *any* ecosystem in the slightest, so this point is moot.
Owner

you break them, you're done.

Banning in Open Libre software development only results in harming the ecosystem, i would specify course of action per ToS violation and handled the content apropriately to that to not affect the user account unless local law forces us to do so.

E.g. Publishing gore -> Forcing the repository to be private with a legal notice somewhere around untill the gore is made to comply with ToS/CoC

I also don't think someone breaking our tos is suddenly "us banning libre sw development".

> > you break them, you're done. > > Banning in Open Libre software development only results in harming the ecosystem, i would specify course of action per ToS violation and handled the content apropriately to that to not affect the user account unless local law forces us to do so. > > E.g. Publishing gore -> Forcing the repository to be private with a legal notice somewhere around untill the gore is made to comply with ToS/CoC I also don't think someone breaking *our* tos is suddenly "us banning libre sw development".
Poster

You are trying to solve a non-existent problem here.

Made this to prove my point https://git.dotya.ml/kreyren/ManBearPig

Anyone is welcome to host any code, regardless of what is its purpose or output. As long as the repo does not contain explicit imagery (or other potentially illegal content) itself, there is no reason for anyone to do anything about it.

Copyright is a very good reason imho as that's something that can get dotya seized by a court order directly at the DNS root server and hosting e.g. current situation with youtube-dl and RIAA (https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-23-RIAA.md) even though it's most likely unjust.

Ad "harming the ecosystem" - hosting content that breaks the law or goes against common decency does not benefit any ecosystem in the slightest, so this point is moot.

Libre Open-source is mostly socialist-liberian ideology that doesn't believe in patents, copyright and liability where there are countries like Iran that allegedly does not obey copyright that shoudn't be enfoced by dotya.

Also common decency is subjective per culture e.g. there is lots of software written to break through chinese firewall which are considered illegal in china, but supported in the USA.

Also note that most of the Libre OSS is built on going agains common dencency alike rewritting proprietary projects that depend on an income for the sake of freedom that eventually kills the proprietary project e.g. Microsoft being forced to open their projects to survive on the new libre-defined ecosystem such as powershell, dotnet, file explorer, etc..


Note that this doesn't seem to add maintaining strain on the service excluding the processing of DMCA that can be community maintained.

> You are trying to solve a non-existent problem here. Made this to prove my point https://git.dotya.ml/kreyren/ManBearPig > Anyone is welcome to host any code, regardless of what is its purpose or output. As long as the repo does not contain explicit imagery (or other potentially illegal content) itself, there is no reason for anyone to do anything about it. Copyright is a very good reason imho as that's something that can get dotya seized by a court order directly at the DNS root server and hosting e.g. current situation with youtube-dl and RIAA (https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-23-RIAA.md) even though it's most likely unjust. > Ad "harming the ecosystem" - hosting content that breaks the law or goes against common decency does not benefit any ecosystem in the slightest, so this point is moot. Libre Open-source is mostly socialist-liberian ideology that doesn't believe in patents, copyright and liability where there are countries like Iran that allegedly does not obey copyright that shoudn't be enfoced by dotya. Also common decency is subjective per culture e.g. there is lots of software written to break through chinese firewall which are considered illegal in china, but supported in the USA. Also note that most of the Libre OSS is built on going agains common dencency alike rewritting proprietary projects that depend on an income for the sake of freedom that eventually kills the proprietary project e.g. Microsoft being forced to open their projects to survive on the new libre-defined ecosystem such as powershell, dotnet, file explorer, etc.. --- Note that this doesn't seem to add maintaining strain on the service excluding the processing of DMCA that can be community maintained.
Poster

I also don't think someone breaking our tos is suddenly "us banning libre sw development".

It is, see Freedom 0 defined by FSF:

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

which would be broken by ToS banning the content making the platform non-libre from a point of view of FSF i believe.

> I also don't think someone breaking our tos is suddenly "us banning libre sw development". It is, see Freedom 0 defined by FSF: > The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). which would be broken by ToS banning the content making the platform non-libre from a point of view of FSF i believe.
Owner

just otr:
we for sure wouldn't live without dotnet and powershell

as to the community maintenance, could you elaborate what exactly do you have in mind?

just otr: we for sure wouldn't live without dotnet and powershell as to the community maintenance, could you elaborate what exactly do you have in mind?
Poster

as to the community maintenance, could you elaborate what exactly do you have in mind?

Basically making a public repository where the DMCA would be submitted and for privileged community members to handle it..

In practice this would probably need a foundation to make it practical so that it's harder to abuse while having the resources to process the requests.

See codeberg's handling of foundation where people giving more then 16USD per month have the voting right.

> as to the community maintenance, could you elaborate what exactly do you have in mind? Basically making a public repository where the DMCA would be submitted and for privileged community members to handle it.. In practice this would probably need a foundation to make it practical so that it's harder to abuse while having the resources to process the requests. See codeberg's handling of foundation where people giving more then 16USD per month have the voting right.
Owner

as to the community maintenance, could you elaborate what exactly do you have in mind?

Basically making a public repository where the DMCA would be submitted and for privileged community members to handle it..

In practice this would probably need a foundation to make it practical so that it's harder to abuse while having the resources to process the requests.

See codeberg's handling of foundation where people giving more then 16USD per month have the voting right.

what are the other options again?

> > as to the community maintenance, could you elaborate what exactly do you have in mind? > > Basically making a public repository where the DMCA would be submitted and for privileged community members to handle it.. > > In practice this would probably need a foundation to make it practical so that it's harder to abuse while having the resources to process the requests. > > See codeberg's handling of foundation where people giving more then 16USD per month have the voting right. what are the other options again?
Owner

I also don't think someone breaking our tos is suddenly "us banning libre sw development".

It is, see Freedom 0 defined by FSF:

The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

which would be broken by ToS banning the content making the platform non-libre from a point of view of FSF i believe.

also, I don't think you're right.

this is not your program. this is a service that you're using.
you are free to run your own instance of whatever and do whatever the eff you want to with it.
however, you are not running this program, therefore you are not in a position to control it.

also how else should hostile users (should they arrive) be handled?
there is a tos, it's binding for users of this here service, you don't respect it, you don't get to use it.
it has to have boundaries and I think @kreyren you are mistaking freedom for anarchy

> > I also don't think someone breaking our tos is suddenly "us banning libre sw development". > > It is, see Freedom 0 defined by FSF: > > > The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). > > which would be broken by ToS banning the content making the platform non-libre from a point of view of FSF i believe. also, I don't think you're right. this is not *your* program. this is a service that you're *using*. you are *free* to run *your own* instance of *whatever* and *do whatever the eff you want to* with it. however, you are not running this program, therefore you are not in a position to control it. also how else should hostile users (should they arrive) be handled? there is a tos, it's binding for users of this here service, you don't respect it, you don't get to use it. it has to have boundaries and I think @kreyren you are mistaking freedom for anarchy
Poster

this is not your program. this is a service that you're using.

Agree, but the freedom 0 i believe could be interpreted this way

however, you are not running this program, therefore you are not in a position to control it.

Which to me seems anti-libre thus why am i suggesting package manager hooks and giving the community the power to handle the service with review from maintainers.

there is a tos, it's binding for users of this here service, you don't respect it, you don't get to use it.
it has to have boundaries and I think @kreyren you are mistaking freedom for anarchy

Anarchy woudn't suggest making the repositories private this is meant to be attempt to provide a trusted environment for the end-users to make them to not be afraid of loosing their code while handling these violation in civilized manner instead of arguably authoritatism which is generally unwanted.

> this is not your program. this is a service that you're using. Agree, but the freedom 0 i believe could be interpreted this way > however, you are not running this program, therefore you are not in a position to control it. Which to me seems anti-libre thus why am i suggesting package manager hooks and giving the community the power to handle the service with review from maintainers. > there is a tos, it's binding for users of this here service, you don't respect it, you don't get to use it. it has to have boundaries and I think @kreyren you are mistaking freedom for anarchy Anarchy woudn't suggest making the repositories private this is meant to be attempt to provide a trusted environment for the end-users to make them to not be afraid of loosing their code while handling these violation in civilized manner instead of arguably authoritatism which is generally unwanted.
Owner

this is not your program. this is a service that you're using.

Agree, but the freedom 0 i believe could be interpreted this way

however, you are not running this program, therefore you are not in a position to control it.

Which to me seems anti-libre thus why am i suggesting package manager hooks and giving the community the power to handle the service with review from maintainers.

there is a tos, it's binding for users of this here service, you don't respect it, you don't get to use it.
it has to have boundaries and I think @kreyren you are mistaking freedom for anarchy

Anarchy woudn't suggest making the repositories private this is meant to be attempt to provide a trusted environment for the end-users to make them to not be afraid of loosing their code while handling these violation in civilized manner instead of arguably authoritatism which is generally unwanted.

I don't think so, RMS himself tells you to run your own sh*t if you can.
So you are willingly giving up part of your freedom by using somebody else's computer/service.
not to say I should abuse it.
this is provided for you, that equally doesn't mean you should demand stuff in a crazy manner.
you are signing up agreeing to the tos, thus you are bound by it.
I don't see how this is anti-libre.
you are free not to sign up.

and to the point of trust - do whatever you want that doesn't harm the service and others (these things being written up in the tos) and be respectful.

if you are being respectful, you don't need to break sh*t.
if you are breaking sh*t, you know what to expect as per the tos.
it's dead simple.

and it's also been mentioned that a warning would be given to users breaking rules anyway, so noone is losing anything.
btw you brought up the dmca stuff, which could result in users losing stuff (should it be deemed copyright-infringing)

> > this is not your program. this is a service that you're using. > > Agree, but the freedom 0 i believe could be interpreted this way > > > however, you are not running this program, therefore you are not in a position to control it. > > Which to me seems anti-libre thus why am i suggesting package manager hooks and giving the community the power to handle the service with review from maintainers. > > > there is a tos, it's binding for users of this here service, you don't respect it, you don't get to use it. > it has to have boundaries and I think @kreyren you are mistaking freedom for anarchy > > Anarchy woudn't suggest making the repositories private this is meant to be attempt to provide a trusted environment for the end-users to make them to not be afraid of loosing their code while handling these violation in civilized manner instead of arguably authoritatism which is generally unwanted. I don't think so, RMS himself tells you to run your own sh\*t if you can. So you are *willingly* giving up part of your freedom by using *somebody else's computer/service*. not to say I should abuse it. this is provided for you, that equally doesn't mean you should demand stuff in a crazy manner. you are signing up agreeing to the tos, thus you are bound by it. I don't see how this is anti-libre. you are free not to sign up. and to the point of trust - do whatever you want that doesn't harm the service and others (these things being written up in the tos) and be respectful. if you are being respectful, you don't need to break sh\*t. if you are breaking sh\*t, you know what to expect as per the tos. it's dead simple. and it's also been mentioned that a warning would be given to users breaking rules anyway, so noone is losing anything. btw you brought up the dmca stuff, which could result in users losing stuff (should it be deemed copyright-infringing)
Owner

You are not running a program, you are using a service with all that comes with it. Nobody is forcing you to use any particular service if you don't agree with its terms. We as maintainers of this particular service are not interested in any form of moral relativism, communism, libertarianism or any other -isms and ideological garbage for that matter.

This platform is provided as a space for projects, not politics. That includes the platform management. The community is welcome to contribute their suggestions but the site is built and maintained in accordance with the admin's own values and what happens with it is up to admin's sole discretion.

Owners of publicly available objectionable content, should it ever appear here, will be warned and should they choose not to comply, removed from the service.

If you feel like contributing morally questionable content, you are welcome to do so somewhere else.

You are not running a program, you are *using* a *service* with all that comes with it. Nobody is forcing you to use any particular service if you don't agree with its terms. We as maintainers of this particular service are not interested in any form of moral relativism, communism, libertarianism or any other -isms and ideological garbage for that matter. This platform is provided as a space for projects, not politics. That includes the platform management. The community is welcome to contribute their suggestions but the site is built and maintained in accordance with the admin's own values and what happens with it is up to admin's sole discretion. Owners of publicly available objectionable content, should it ever appear here, will be warned and should they choose not to comply, removed from the service. If you feel like contributing morally questionable content, you are welcome to do so somewhere else.
Owner

that said, if a program helps to circumvent oppression - or any kind of abuse - tools - I support it.

but anyhow, somebody has to do the policing as it's not like we're unaware of what's happening here (it's not e2e or anything - by it's nature) but that doesn't mean we go about happily deleting somebody's stuff, as was previously said.

and as was also said above, rules are in the toc and if broken then consequences.

that said, if a program helps to circumvent oppression - or any kind of abuse - tools - I support it. but anyhow, somebody has to do the policing as it's not like we're unaware of what's happening here (it's not e2e or anything - by it's nature) but that doesn't mean we go about happily deleting somebody's stuff, as was previously said. and as was also said above, rules are in the toc and if broken then consequences.
wanderer added this to the General project 12 months ago
Poster

I don't think so, RMS himself tells you to run your own sh*t if you can.
So you are willingly giving up part of your freedom by using somebody else's computer/service.
not to say I should abuse it. @wanderer

Gitea by design depends on a large amount of processing power (storage, CPU for CI) while requiring a cooperating in between people and so self-hosting is not an option as it would be limiting factor in relation to other gitea instances.

This would be a case if Gitea could federate which it currently can't even though it's planned feature.

this is provided for you, that equally doesn't mean you should demand stuff in a crazy manner.
you are signing up agreeing to the tos, thus you are bound by it.
I don't see how this is anti-libre.
you are free not to sign up. @wanderer

It's anti-libre in my mind, because you are restricting access to the service for software that may depend on those restrictions.

Quotting shorted version from wiki:

Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism, and voluntary association. Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

I would interpret that as authority restricting the freedom of choice of it's users to what can be put on the platform that eventually restricts invidualism as they now have to depend on your decision what can and can't be on the platform.

Where the proposed is to allow everything that is children and general public friendly and that is not violating copyright and relevant laws in user area else force these repositories to be private and inform the end-user why the repository was made private.

and to the point of trust - do whatever you want that doesn't harm the service and others (these things being written up in the tos) and be respectful.

To be honest i don't have trust in the service atm as copyright trolls are a concern for example allegedly RIAA https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-23-RIAA.md and none should have such trust unless there is a good legal handling in place that specifies exactly the process in case of such violation such as:

  • Valid proof of copyright violation
  • Ability to appeal on the restriction that can be publicly logged through out-of-court solution

After these fail then the end-user should have specified amount of time so that they can migrate their repository to avoid situations like allegedly bitbucket removoving mercury repositories without notice, because they are conflicting with their business plan.

We as maintainers of this particular service are not interested in any form of moral relativism, communism, libertarianism or any other -isms and ideological garbage for that matter.

So you are saying that this is an anarchy without any care to comply with relevant law?

but anyhow, somebody has to do the policing

Agree, but i want the community given to the trusted member to have the policing ability in case project violates CoC/ToS.

and as was also said above, rules are in the toc and if broken then consequences.

Agree, but the consequences should be clearly stated and followed with consequences to the privileged users that break the process.

> I don't think so, RMS himself tells you to run your own sh*t if you can. So you are willingly giving up part of your freedom by using somebody else's computer/service. not to say I should abuse it. @wanderer Gitea by design depends on a large amount of processing power (storage, CPU for CI) while requiring a cooperating in between people and so self-hosting is not an option as it would be limiting factor in relation to other gitea instances. This would be a case if Gitea could federate which it currently can't even though it's planned feature. > this is provided for you, that equally doesn't mean you should demand stuff in a crazy manner. you are signing up agreeing to the tos, thus you are bound by it. I don't see how this is anti-libre. you are free not to sign up. @wanderer It's anti-libre in my mind, because you are restricting access to the service for software that may depend on those restrictions. Quotting shorted version from wiki: > Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism, and voluntary association. Libertarians share a skepticism of authority and state power, but diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems. -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism I would interpret that as authority restricting the freedom of choice of it's users to what can be put on the platform that eventually restricts invidualism as they now have to depend on your decision what can and can't be on the platform. Where the proposed is to allow everything that is children and general public friendly and that is not violating copyright and relevant laws in user area else force these repositories to be private and inform the end-user why the repository was made private. > and to the point of trust - do whatever you want that doesn't harm the service and others (these things being written up in the tos) and be respectful. To be honest i don't have trust in the service atm as copyright trolls are a concern for example allegedly RIAA https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-23-RIAA.md and none should have such trust unless there is a good legal handling in place that specifies exactly the process in case of such violation such as: - Valid proof of copyright violation - Ability to appeal on the restriction that can be publicly logged through out-of-court solution After these fail then the end-user should have specified amount of time so that they can migrate their repository to avoid situations like allegedly bitbucket removoving mercury repositories without notice, because they are conflicting with their business plan. > We as maintainers of this particular service are not interested in any form of moral relativism, communism, libertarianism or any other -isms and ideological garbage for that matter. So you are saying that this is an anarchy without any care to comply with relevant law? > but anyhow, somebody has to do the policing Agree, but i want the community given to the trusted member to have the policing ability in case project violates CoC/ToS. > and as was also said above, rules are in the toc and if broken then consequences. Agree, but the consequences should be clearly stated and followed with consequences to the privileged users that break the process.
Owner

Gitea by design depends on a large amount of processing power

This is just not true. Gitea can be hosted on a Raspberry Pi SBC. That is the definition of lightweight.

It's anti-libre in my mind, because you are restricting access to the service for software that may depend on those restrictions.

Keep it in your mind then, or look for an alternative service. We are not restricting anything, anyone is welcome to host their projects here as long as they conduct themselves properly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Let me reiterate, we are not interested in any -ism or principles thereof.

So you are saying that this is an anarchy without any care to comply with relevant law?

You do realize that one can live according to a set values and not ascribe to any political ideology, right? Nobody is saying anything about not honoring the law of our jurisdiction should the need arise.

Agree, but the consequences should be clearly stated and followed with consequences to the privileged users that break the process.

This is not a full time job for any one of us. Don't worry, the toc is in the process of being written up as time allows.

>Gitea by design depends on a large amount of processing power This is just not true. Gitea can be hosted on a Raspberry Pi SBC. That is the definition of lightweight. >It's anti-libre in my mind, because you are restricting access to the service for software that may depend on those restrictions. Keep it in your mind then, or look for an alternative service. We are not restricting anything, anyone is welcome to host their projects here as long as they conduct themselves properly. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism Let me reiterate, we are not interested in any -ism or principles thereof. >So you are saying that this is an anarchy without any care to comply with relevant law? You do realize that one can live according to a set values and not ascribe to any political ideology, right? Nobody is saying anything about not honoring the law of our jurisdiction should the need arise. >Agree, but the consequences should be clearly stated and followed with consequences to the privileged users that break the process. This is not a full time job for any one of us. Don't worry, the toc is in the process of being written up as time allows.
Owner

you literally went from "don't show kids bad stuff, comply with the law" to "I don't trust your policing, you want to remove user's stuff".

this is a new service hosted as a hobby so - understandably - as of now it does not have things like coc and tos ready.
and once it does, it's been written by us anyway - so our rules I guess.
maybe what you miss is that they're not clearly outlined currently.

another point that you maybe missed is nobody's deleting anything (your bitbucket style quote) so please get back to it.

next on.

emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism, and voluntary association

yep, you're ultimately free to host your own infra if you don't like the way it's done here.
free to join, free to go.
all that while it's also perfectly valid to try to do something about it, too.
also not to say I'm sending people away, just that you are extrapolating this to the extreme where not currently relevant.

one last misconception here

Gitea by design depends on a large amount of processing power (storage, CPU for CI) while requiring a cooperating in between people and so self-hosting is not an option as it would be limiting factor in relation to other gitea instances.

this may be relative but

  • 200MiB in RAM
  • depending on the amount of repos negligible storage reqs
  • while CI is not Gitea (it's drone - https://drone.io) it's optional

does not seem like needing a lot of processing power to me.
so while Gitea itself is pretty lightweight, the overall computational requirements probably depend on your workloads..

as per the planned (yeah..) federation feature, somebody with Pagure is already working on this, so they may have it sooner than Gitea but I'm really looking forward to it.

I'd still encourage users to host their own stuff if they can, if only at home.
you can have a local Gitea mirror on a Raspberry Pi as a kind of a backup for instance for close to nothing.

you literally went from "don't show kids bad stuff, comply with the law" to "I don't trust your policing, you want to remove user's stuff". this is a new service hosted as a hobby so - understandably - as of now it does not have things like coc and tos ready. and once it does, it's been written by us anyway - so our rules I guess. maybe what you miss is that they're not clearly outlined currently. another point that you maybe missed is nobody's deleting anything (your bitbucket style quote) so please get back to it. next on. > emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism, and voluntary association yep, you're ultimately free to host your own infra if you don't like the way it's done here. free to join, free to go. all that while it's also perfectly valid to try to do something about it, too. also not to say I'm sending people away, just that you are extrapolating this to the extreme where not currently relevant. one last misconception here > Gitea by design depends on a large amount of processing power (storage, CPU for CI) while requiring a cooperating in between people and so self-hosting is not an option as it would be limiting factor in relation to other gitea instances. this may be relative but * 200MiB in RAM * depending on the amount of repos negligible storage reqs * while CI is not Gitea (it's drone - https://drone.io) it's optional does not seem like needing a lot of processing power to me. so while Gitea itself is pretty lightweight, the overall computational requirements probably depend on your workloads.. as per the planned (yeah..) federation feature, somebody with Pagure is already working on this, so they may have it sooner than Gitea but I'm really looking forward to it. I'd still encourage users to host their own stuff if they can, if only at home. you can have a local Gitea mirror on a Raspberry Pi as a kind of a backup for instance for close to nothing.
Poster

Gitea can be hosted on a Raspberry Pi SBC. @dalahast
does not seem like needing a lot of processing power to me. @wanderer

Yes, but libre software development depends on cooperation which scales exponentially for processing resources and storage requirements..

We are not restricting anything, anyone is welcome to host their projects here as long as they conduct themselves properly. @dalahast

In which case the conduct has to be layed out for it to not restrict anything.

You do realize that one can live according to a set values and not ascribe to any political ideology, right? @dalahast

I doubt that being possible.

you literally went from "don't show kids bad stuff, comply with the law" to "I don't trust your policing, you want to remove user's stuff". @wanderer

Yes, because i am proposing handling these through community management instead of maintainer policing.

another point that you maybe missed is nobody's deleting anything @wanderer

Yet you made private my ManBearPig repository...

yep, you're ultimately free to host your own infra if you don't like the way it's done here.
free to join, free to go.
all that while it's also perfectly valid to try to do something about it, too. @wanderer

Libre software development is about cooperation and assuming shown enthusiasms from you i would prefer to hlp making this platform into a GitHub replacement until Gitea can federate and depending on the federation implementation.

... Assuming you step aside from authoritatism which seems to be the most common method to harm libre software ecosystem

> Gitea can be hosted on a Raspberry Pi SBC. @dalahast > does not seem like needing a lot of processing power to me. @wanderer Yes, but libre software development depends on cooperation which scales exponentially for processing resources and storage requirements.. > We are not restricting anything, anyone is welcome to host their projects here as long as they conduct themselves properly. @dalahast In which case the conduct has to be layed out for it to not restrict anything. > You do realize that one can live according to a set values and not ascribe to any political ideology, right? @dalahast I doubt that being possible. > you literally went from "don't show kids bad stuff, comply with the law" to "I don't trust your policing, you want to remove user's stuff". @wanderer Yes, because i am proposing handling these through community management instead of maintainer policing. > another point that you maybe missed is nobody's deleting anything @wanderer Yet you made private my ManBearPig repository... > yep, you're ultimately free to host your own infra if you don't like the way it's done here. free to join, free to go. all that while it's also perfectly valid to try to do something about it, too. @wanderer Libre software development is about cooperation and assuming shown enthusiasms from you i would prefer to hlp making this platform into a GitHub replacement until Gitea can federate and depending on the federation implementation. ... Assuming you step aside from authoritatism which seems to be the most common method to harm libre software ecosystem
Poster

i was asked was forced to say in exchange for cuddles that i've baited @wanderer through the mighty power of south park twice to take the repo down to take my repo down to prove my point

i was asked was forced to say in exchange for cuddles that i've baited @wanderer through the mighty power of south park twice to take the repo down to take my repo down to prove my point
kreyren closed this issue 12 months ago
kreyren reopened this issue 12 months ago
wanderer added this to the v1.0 milestone 11 months ago
Poster

fwiw we may be able to utilize https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Tor_Child_Abuse_Block for this issue (meaning that end-users would be just maintaining the database of unsafe repositories for GP and children)

fwiw we may be able to utilize https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Tor_Child_Abuse_Block for this issue (meaning that end-users would be just maintaining the database of unsafe repositories for GP and children)
Sign in to join this conversation.
Loading…
There is no content yet.