/tech/ - Technology★

anonymous = piracy

It's a bit oversimplified but it basically means no-name then a copyright holder/licence giver is not avaible meaning it's code with unknown licence status and that means it's properitary code.

So an anonymous contribution system cannot be done until the copyright and patent problem is solved, to do this the laws must be fixed but to fix laws the goverments must be fixed first and before you can fix goverments you have to get rid of jews, all of them.

>a copyright holder/licence giver is not avaible meaning it's code with unknown licence status

Just define it in the ToS. Linux (or whatever idgaf) is given complete rights to whatever code you contribute as a term of submission, and it is therefore subject to the GPL licence.

>>975690

then comes a jew, says his code was stolen. goes to court, now either you go to court too and lose your anonymity and proof your the original author or the jew wins for having no counter to his claims.

>>975693

Does Zyklon B count as a counter?

>>975693

Derivatives of gpl licensed works legally have to be gpl licensed themselves. So just make sure all your works are derivatives of some central work, which has a nonymous owner who is willing to go to court.

Indeed.

There are this many not I2P contributors?

Lol, /tech/ is hopeless

I'm from the NSA, I mean, I'm Anonymous too!

Please accept these patches to the Kernel module authentication.

>>975716

Just check the patches before approving them. Isn't that why open source is supposed to be better than closed source?

>>975747

How about just check the code

>>975680 (OP)

Would be harder to figure out who you can trust, you'd have to meticulously vet every piece of code that goes into it and pick it apart in case they added some sneaky backdoor/vulnerability whether intentional or not. If you have people you trust, you can be much more relaxed with their patches.

Anonymous contribution system would be possible, but you will be not able to initiate any legal action in case some company stole your code, because there is not any way to correlate the code to you, and the only one person that can initiate any legal action is the copyright holder, that's you.

no it needs to be pseudonymous. people need to have reputation instead of running code by random people. "racial discrimination", etc is a non issue

>>975767

no you fucktard. nobody gives a shit about copyright.

>>>/g/

>>975776

(Secure) Tripcodes would be ideal. Nobody actually remembers those, but easy to verify for a database.

>>975716

Do you honestly think a state-sponsored group with intent to infiltrate a project would not have the absolute basic OPSEC understanding to not associate themselves with a government agency?

Anonymity takes away that false sense of security, if it exists.

>>975825

Pseudonymity should work as well, yeah.

>Nobody actually remembers those

If you were invested, you would care.

>>975777

t. antisemite