You're biased. AI was trained on a well-written professional texts which used these phrases and speech patterns, it was very common before the AI-generated texts. These speech patterns especially common for Russian speakers.
I can't understand why people defend improper typography. If you're writing a proper, professional-looking blog post, they think you now should use double-minus -- instead of em-dash to make it look non-AI like, only for that reason?
In Russia, we have many typography keyboards/addons, because, well, it historically looked very silly to use double-minus or "-quotes instead of «»-quotes.
I've no idea how some countries got their typography standardized on the PCs and have it from the very beginning (Germany with their quotes for example), but the other countries need to setup external software and configuration. Apparently, US also didn't got their "third level" keyboard as a standard.
It's a great concept, but you haven't open-sourced the previous code, as the license requires, and you're yet again apologizing in this project as well, without any code.
Pretty sure you have my code in both projects. I contribute first and foremost to make printers and scanners to work reliably, but also keeping in mind the idea that I could at least try to apply legal actions for companies which violate the license rules one day, as a CUPS/SANE/printer/scanner drivers contributor.
If you think I’ve done something wrong according to the licences involved here, please do clarify. I had understood that open-sourcing the Linux stuff (as branches of a fork of v86, linked from the /credits page) met all relevant legal obligations, which I absolutely intend to do.
More broadly, it’s unusual for me not to make everything open, and I do feel bad/conflicted about it. But, unusually, I feel like I have identified a possible route to monetising this, and I think open-sourcing all of it risks making that harder.
Sorry, it's me who needs a reading comprehension lessons. I've read back in printervention website and now again that you didn't open the code that you HAVE to. Because you're apologizing for that, I assumed that you're breaking the license, twice.
After rereading both of your websites again, I should say you've nothing wrong! It's sleepy me who accused you for nothing, sorry.
Linux printing and scanning stack is held on 5 enthusiasts basically, and is quite buggy. Any contributions welcome.
If you want to further improve your project, make it small and fast, you can compile printer filters (most of which work on cups-raster data) with emscripten. This way you don't need to use CUPS, Linux, and x86 emulation. You'll need to write some shims for CUPS libppd functions which many filters use (some don't), and either parse PPD files or convert them into another representation.
Most filters (drivers) are quite simple pipes from stdin to stdout, sometimes they don't use cups functions at all, receiving all the data directly from raster header. Some filters, such as gutenprint, are more complex and use their own backends, but even in this case it's not a hard task: libusb has emscripten WebUSB backend.
If monetization is at odds with open-source, why wouldn't potential customers just wouldn't go to VueScan, as someone posted? I was recently looking at scanners, and saw some brands directly advertise Linux support through this... which means you now have to pay subscription each year to access the expensive hardware you bought.
Thankfully the Avision FB5100 states native Linux support (AFAIK, this is the only flatbed A3 scanner that does), so I'm certainly going to buy this one. I know implementing device support for companies that don't make any effort is hard and thankless, but then we need to divest/invest in the right companies and solutions.
My recent experience shows that eSCL is way behind in terms of functionality. If I want lossless scanning from by Brother scanner, I need the proprietary drivers.
Linux kernel contribution policy required sending patches under real name, but that policy have been lifted about 2 years ago. Now they allow pseudonym contributions.
That's why LLM will eventually be used only for initial interaction between the user in their language, to prepare the data to a specialized model.
Imagine face recognition to work like a text chat, where the PC gets the frame from the camera and writes in the chat: "Who's that? Here's the RGB888 image in hex: ...".
Huh? The images are tokenized in the same way language is and it’s just fed into one single model. Not multiple smaller expert models.
Image gets rasterized into smaller pieces (eg 4x4 pixels) and each of those is assigned a token, similarly how text is broken up into tokens. And the whole thing is fed into a single model.
> Imagine face recognition to work like a text chat, where the PC gets the frame from the camera and writes in the chat: "Who's that? Here's the RGB888 image in hex: ...".
The experts in MoEs aren't specialized in any meaningful task sense. From level of what we would think as tasks MoEs are selected essentially arbitrarily per token and per block.
It’s unsupervised, yes, but “unspecialized in any meaningful task sense” is incorrect, that’s the whole point. It’s just not in the sense of “this is a legal expert, this is a software developer”.
Optimal expert separation depends on the goal and can be pretty arbitrary, for example DeepSeek v4 separates them more or less by domain if I remember correctly.
Denuvo is owned by Irdeto, a digital rights management company in a broad sense. They not only do software and hardware DRM, but also work as a watchdog for movie and music companies to claim DMCA violations for BitTorrent, among all other stuff.
The article recalls people that open-source software is not necessary created for the community, but rather by the author, for the author oftentimes.
The "support" is not only the maintenance burden which (sometimes) could be solved for money. It's also the features that the original author just don't find useful at all, but others may want to have.
If I don't have Mac, never used it and don't plan to buy it, why would I want to accept contribution to support this platform? It's useless for me, I won't be able to test it (and it will break sooner or later), and once the code is accepted, it's usually assumed that it would be maintained by the application author, not the code contributor (unless additional CLA is signed, etc).
> The article recalls people that open-source software is not necessary created for the community, but rather by the author, for the author oftentimes.
Exactly. A FLOSS license essentially states "I put together this cool thing, please take a look and pass around."
When I published FLOSS projects of my own, my motivation was to share with the world something that was useful to me and that I enjoyed doing, in case it was of any use to anyone. Once I discovered a small FLOSS project of mine was used by a big name commercial software suite and I was tremendously surprised for finding out by googling it, and found it extremely funny. And that was it. Is this so outlandish?
- FOSS applications don't have to be distributed publicly — that's only the common social expectation
- FOSS does not imply that the code should be available for non-customers. The developer decides who is the customer.
- FOSS is *encouraged* to be sold for money, *you can sell others' software, even if it's originally free of charge* (see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html)
- Open-source licensed with non-free license is still open-source, although non-FOSS
- You, as a developer, should not be ashamed to choose non-free open-source license if you want to earn (more) money on your software or apply additional restrictions for your benefit. It still could be copyleft.
TL;DR: we invented LICENSE.md and stick to it a lot, but nobody thought of making SOCIAL.md. When someone says "open source", many assume:
> The author is making it "for people, for society, for everyone around them, interested in developing the project, adding new features (especially those I need), and improving it in every way for the benefit of all users. After all, if that's not the case, why even publish it?"
This, however, is just a most common social expectation of FOSS, but far from the only case. Lack of mention of this distinction between technical and social open source is the main cause of disagreements, disputes, and, ultimately, burnout due to misaligned social expectations.
I used to have to explain the problem and the difference to an outraged public, but recently I came across an article by Jeffrey Paul https://sneak.berlin/20250720/the-agpl-is-nonfree/ comparing open-source code to a gift! My explanation boiled down to:
"Don't like the gift, it doesn't suit you? Throw it out and forget it!"
Open-source licensed with non-free license is still open-source, although non-FOSS
nope. there are only a few licenses approved by OSI that are not also considered Free Software. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html look at the long list of GPL incompatible Free Software licenses.
btw "open source that is non-FOSS" makes no sense because FOSS literally means Free and Open Source Software"
>there are only a few licenses approved by OSI that are not also considered Free Software
This is what I'm trying to conterpoint: you're thinking of "Free software" as in legal definition of GNU (4 freedoms), and "Open Source software" as in legal definition of OSI (10 points), in terms of the licenses approved by these organizations.
Users see open-source as a combination of legal/social/community expectations, as a phenomenon. Overwhelming majority of the software have only legal license, and nothing more, and oftentimes the developer themselves don't know what their social behavior should be, they're forming it given the circumstances.
We focused ONLY on the legal definition of open source for very long, and hardly spent time on the other, IMO much more important things: for whom this software is for, how should you communicate, what should you expect as a user, everything about social aspect, maintenance (which is out of scope of legal definitions of the software, but which made FOSS that appealing).
I've even seen cases where the author changed the license (used "legal measures") to prevent further community from forming around the software (to decimate users, to make the software less appealing to FOSS community), because it was too overwhelming to respond to everyone. Instead of using direct measures (social statements of some kind), they used license as a community control method. The author didn't really want to change the code license, they just didn't know other means to achieve different social expectations/behavior they want.
> TL;DR: we invented LICENSE.md and stick to it a lot, but nobody thought of making SOCIAL.md.
I wonder if this always used to be the case, or is all this harassment the product of the past ~decade or so high exposure of open source software? As in no more sketchy websites or weird build pipelines to access them, they're basically slapped on github with an executable for anyone to use.
As written in the article of discussion, it used to be, well, quite a mess. There wasn't an established social expectation that you can ask author to do something, and they will do that. The whole software ecosystem was 100x smaller, and most of the users were tech-savvy. The author released the software somehow, this v1.0 got updated my "many" people (back than many meant 3-4-5), and then, after quite a while, it made a roundtrip back to the author, for which they "officially" released v1.1.
That's it, more or less. If no more bugs found, the software was considered as finished.
And what puzzles me all the time is why the programmer chooses the licenses which permit this exact behavior, and become pissed when this happens?
You explicitly told everyone that you can do that, and when others do that, you become sad.
To be honest, I think this is because many encourage only FOSS licenses as by definition of GNU, and choosing a custom non-"free" license (which could be still copyleft, but with some restrictions for which the developer care) is usually considered as a "bad move" from the abstract community.
And what puzzles me all the time is why the programmer chooses the licenses which permit this exact behavior, and become pissed when this happens?
you almost answer this yourself, it's not just that a custom license is a bad move, because we could develop a standard license that excludes large businesses, but also that we are now invested in how Free Software and Open Source licenses work that it is difficult to change because such a new license would not be compatible.
there are efforts. most notably bruce perens started working on one a few years ago, but now he wants to wait and see who the AI use for code changes things. the other is FUTO. these efforts need to grow and gain momentum.
so not really puzzling, because there isn't much choice
reply