webmink

Thanks for following up, Michael, it is much appreciated. It does leave me (and judging my adjacent comments, also others) with questions, including:

* That wording seems very specific - is there a reason you did not just say "we will not use Customer Input or Customer Content to train our AI" given you have defined those terms? Are you leaving scope for something else (such as uploaded files or presentation content) to still be used? * Can you also clarify exactly which (and whose) "consent" is applicable here? In meetings between multiple equal parties there may not be any one party with standing to consent for everyone involved. Your blog post seems to assume there can be, but the ToS don't appear to define "consent".

It's great that you are engaging and writing about this, many thanks.

While your blog is interesting, it doesn't change the impact of the Terms of Service as currently written. They seem to give you the freedom to train your current and future AI/ML capabilities using any Customer Content (10.4), and your terms apparently have your users warrant that doing so will not infringe any rights (10.6).

Perhaps your terms of use should reflect your current practices rather than leaving scope for those practices to vary without users realising? Will you be changing them following all this feedback?

Thanks for commenting. The issue is not with using AI features though - it is with the Terms granting you unrestricted and eternal use to our conversations to train your AI and potentially disclose our work to your other customers.

With this election, AlmaLinux becomes the only major CentOS Linux replacement distribution to be solely owned and operated by its community of developers and users.

According to the OSI, while the US government needs to clarify exactly what it was intending to do relating to open source freedoms, in the Tornado Cash case the onus is on the cryptocurrency community to show they can abide by money-laundering law rather than appear to intentionally evade it.

I'm glad for you. Your experience is not shared by small businesses for which ICT is a mystery rather than a delight.

To put it concisely, “why is having a patent license until you commence litigation worse than not having one at all?” The answer is subtle.

Many corporate lawyers operate on the assumption that all open source licenses that do not mention patents (BSD, MIT etc) implicitly grant a patent license. Clarifying this ambiguity is seen by them as harmful — that’s why approval of CC0 at OSI was abandoned[1], for example. Including an explicit patent grant removes the possibility this could be argued in court and is seen as an escalation of the patent conflict by Facebook.

Given many voices at Apache are being quietly guided by corporate counsel, this seems the most likely underlying explanation for the antipathy that's been rationalised out into the open.

[1] https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero

As far as I can see the files that were originally under MIT still have their original copyright statements intact, as comments above illustrate. Which files are you alleging have had their credits removed from?

I wrote the article you're complaining about, which is actually mainly about making hybrid PDFs. I did not see your article, let alone copy it; I would have linked to it if I had. I have been working on that piece for a few months off-and-on and pitched it as a "lightning talk" at FLOSS UK Spring 2012 in Edinburgh beforehand.

More than that, I was a manager of the team that created the hybrid PDF feature in OpenOffice at Sun, and have been advocating avoiding editable attachments for years - the earliest I can find on my blog is http://www.webmink.net/2003/07/feature-creep.htm but I am pretty sure I was advocating it before.

The web is a big place where there are often people working on the same ideas as you (which is why software patents are a travesty), and I recommend avoiding accusing people of incompetence without a little more research.

Going further than that, given Google hired a number of staff that had worked on the Java implementation at Sun, and given that the head of Google was present at Sun as the Java patent-and-copyright trap was being constructed, it seems inconceivable to me that Dalvik would have been permitted to violate Sun's patents.