Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | kam's commentslogin

> Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as well have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license. Public domain material is compatible with the GNU GPL.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PublicDomain


Yes, if it is clearly labeled as such, than GPL/LGPL licenced works may be included in such products. However, this relationship cannot make such works GPL without violating copyright, and doesn't magically become yours to re-license isomorphic plagiarized code from LLM.

For example, one may use NASA public domain photos as you wish, but cannot register copyright under another license you find convenient to sue people. Also, if that public domain photo includes the Nutella trademark, it doesn't protect you from getting sued for violating Ferrero trademarks/patents/copyrights in your own use-case.

Very different than slapping a new label on something you never owned. =3


> this relationship cannot make such works GPL without violating copyright

By definition, for content in the public domain, there's no copyright to be violated and no rightsholder with any recognizable/enforceable claim to IP to bring a suit. There's no IP at all.


One can't license something they never owned to other users. GPL is fundamentally a contaminating license, and LLM output can't magically become GPL/LGPL.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20260414-the-monkey-sel...

https://www.peta.org/news/monkey-selfie-case-animal-rights-f...

Indeed, people also failed to give Monkeys the right to sue for copyright enforcement. Folks seem really keen on piracy "with extra steps" these days. =3


There's no such thing as piracy of the public domain. You're either hopelessly ill-suited to grapple with this topic or you're a troll, so I won't comment further.

If you're actually sincere in your beliefs, then take the money you regularly spend on hiring those specialized IP lawyers you mentioned and get one who will provide a second opinion and provide a detailed explanation of why what you're saying here is nonsense.


You were provided with the context to educate yourself about what "uncopyrightable" means, and indeed most LLM output is >20% nonsense.

Data theft of service or piracy from the web and "AI" users content are used in the model training sets, and when codified the statistical saliency is significant if popular content is present.

For example, when an LLM does a vector search, there is a high probability of pirated content bleed-though and isomorphic plagiarism in the high dimensional vector space results. Thus, often when you coincidentally type in "name a cartoon mouse", there is a higher probability Disney "Micky Mouse" will pop out in the output rather than "Mighty Mouse". Note Trademarks never expire if the fees are paid, and Disney can still technically sue anyone that messes with their mouse.

LLM are useful for context search, but can't function properly without constantly stealing from actual humans. Thus, will often violate copyright, trademark, and patents. In a commercial context it is legally irrelevant how the output has misappropriated the IP.

This channel offers several simplified explanations of the work being done with models, and Anthropic posts detailed research papers on its website.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDdKiQNw80c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx4Tpsk_fnM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAcwtV_bFp4

I would recommend this channels "AI" project demo on the PDP-11:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUE3FSIk46g

Also, a well known case of "AI" output infringement leading to legal peril:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhgYMH6n004

One may believe whatever they like, and have a glorious day. =3


> One may believe whatever they like

Indeed.



USB devices cannot directly address host memory like PCIe or FireWire, but the XHCI controller does DMA to/from host memory, and most USB device controllers have some kind of DMA between USB and the device's RAM.


No need to pretend to be HID. Windows has WinUSB for userspace USB drivers that don't need special signing.


iirc sending HID feature reports doesn’t need admin rights on windows


No, serde-wasm-bindgen implements the serde Serializer interface by calling into JS to directly construct the JS objects on the JS heap without an intermediate serialization/deserialization. You pay the cost of one or more FFI calls for every object though.

https://docs.rs/serde-wasm-bindgen/


Indeed, you're right. However, it still needs to encode and decode strings. WASM just needs native interop.


Send a message to a socket-activated daemon running as a UID with write access to the password database.


Isn't the issue in this case caused not by suid, but by a daemon running as root reading files from a tmp dir? Seems like a socket-activated daemon wouldn't solve this specific case.


See also Luke Wren's Mastodon thread on taping out a RISC-V chip in two weeks: https://types.pl/@wren6991/115572086565318699


https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2025/09/lets-talk-...

> Android Studio is unaffected because deployments performed with adb, which Android Studio uses behind the scenes to push builds to devices, is unaffected.


Thanks.

So, simply sending a download link for an APK to a friend is not enough anymore - I now have to teach them how to install and use adb.

EDIT

> we are also introducing a free developer account type that will allow teachers, students, and hobbyists to distribute apps to a limited number of devices without needing to provide a government ID.

Depending on how they implement that, this would at least partially improve the situation. Sounds like no ID is required, but I assume the whole ordeal with registering each app is still mandatory.


from what i understand the apk route still works fine, you just have to be willing to attach your identity to it via their verification + signing process


The calls to the ipinfo.io API are blocked by Firefox Enhanced Tracking Protection. No results for Location or ISP without turning that off.


I work for IPinfo. I did not know that our site was blocked by Firefox Enhanced Tracking Protection. Not sure what I can do here. The project takes the IP addresses you have provided from your traceroute and gets the information related to them from our website using a frontend HTTP call.


Enhanced Tracking Protection is using the Disconnect domain list. ipinfo.io is listed in services-relay.json and mdl-services-relay.info, which I believe makes the Disconnect.me product route requests to these domains through their proxies to prevent IP fingerprinting.

Should be noted that IPInfo doesn't get blocked with tracking protection set to "standard". Users have to set tracking protection to "strict" to run into this issue. When they do this, they get warned that this setting may break sites.

I don't think Mozilla/Disconnect will make an exception because privacy-infringement is a potential risk with a service like yours if used by malicious websites. I wouldn't put too much effort into this, the people affected by this are a fraction of a fraction of the general web audience and they've already seen a warning that websites may break because of their choice.


Thank you very much for looking into it. I really appreciate it! I agree with you. I understand the point clearly.


The site is flagged as "phishing" by Palo Alto - submitted change request.

edit: They updated from phishing to "computer and internet info" , no longer blocked.


Thank you very much! I work for IPinfo. I am not super familiar with the platform, so it went under my radar. I appreciate the correction.


> Is there a mirror registry with all the same basic images?

https://gallery.ecr.aws/


Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: