eleijeep

Does that actually prevent the app from sending the content through Apple’s servers or does it just prevent iOS from showing it in the notification area?

Well personally I don’t, but I’m not the copyright holder of the Firefox codebase.

Personally I don’t want any ad-tech related code in my browser, unless it’s for blocking ads and tracking scripts.

Allowing ads on startpage probably doesn’t really entail that though. It’s probably just a simple rule adding an exception to the blocking rules.

It’s not a good precedent though. If I was a Waterfox user, I’d be uneasy about this.

It’s a bit more complicated than that because MPL is itself a weak copyleft license that requires that the MPL licensed source code is always made available to recipients of a binary or derived work. The difference from GPL is that it does not require that all additional parts of the derived work are also licensed under MPL, (ie. not viral copyleft) meaning that the MPL licensed work can be linked with proprietary code without requiring that the proprietary code make its source available, but unlike BSD or MIT licenses it does not allow the MPL licensed code to be made proprietary.

The complication comes when linking MPL code with GPL code, even though MPL is GPL-compatible, since this requires that the entire derived work must now be made available under the GPL, while the original MPL licensed parts become dual-licensed under both MPL and GPL.

If Waterfox developers allowed this then it would prohibit the use of the whole derived work in proprietary projects (as they would now need to be GPL), so it would be removing rights that they have already given to downstream users of their code. Proprietary projects would therefore have to remove the GPL licensed additions (in this case it would be the UblockOrigin code) and link just the MPL licensed parts, which would mean using only part of the whole browser.

Personally I agree with you: I prefer GPL licensed projects. But MPL is not a bad license and I can understand and respect that some developers would make that choice (especially since the project is already licensed under MPL as it’s a fork of Firefox).

It’s easy to think it’s telling you useful information when it’s new to you and you don’t know enough to spot the mistakes.

Last time I tried asking an LLM about a command line program it gave me a command line switch that didn’t even exist in that program. When searching for the switch I found that it was for a different program completely.

Personally I would rather just read a book.

Not a very good article. The original write-up (not linked anywhere in the article) is here: https://blog.qualys.com/vulnerabilities-threat-research/2026/03/17/cve-2026-3888-important-snap-flaw-enables-local-privilege-escalation-to-root

They also mention something else that’s interesting at the bottom of the write-up:

Secondary Finding: Vulnerability in Ubuntu 25.10 uutils Coreutils

In a proactive security effort prior to the release of Ubuntu Desktop 25.10, the Qualys Threat Research Unit assisted the Ubuntu Security Team in reviewing the uutils coreutils package (a Rust rewrite of standard GNU utilities).

A race condition in the rm utility allowed an unprivileged local attacker to replace directory entries with symlinks during root-owned cron executions (specifically /etc/cron.daily/apport). Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary file deletion as root or further privilege escalation by targeting snap sandbox directories.

The vulnerability was reported and mitigated prior to the public release of Ubuntu 25.10. The default rm command in Ubuntu 25.10 was reverted to GNU coreutils to mitigate this risk immediately. Upstream fixes have since been applied to the uutils repository.

Not just a spokesperson. Cindy Cohn is a warrior queen. She’s retiring as Executive Director of the EFF this year after serving for over 10 years. She’s a lawyer who has been fighting for our civil liberties for over 20 years. Maximum respect.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if this happens in my lifetime I will eat my hat.

Don’t collaborate with fascists.

No need. Let corporations replace human-designed human-tested code with public domain slop. Soon enough they’ll realise that they’re using millions of lines of code that is completely unsupported by any sapient being and when they get hit with ransomware because their nginx-rewrite had a command injection vulnerability they will fire the CTO and replace all the slop with the FOSS licensed originals.

If all users have the same fingerprint then nobody is getting fingerprinted.

max 50Gb is the catch

If you don’t have legs then how can you go pantsless in a video call? Checkmate Zuck!

He thinks that systemd is desktop linux.

They are claiming they did a magic trick with an LLM and now the project is MIT licensed. And you are saying that it’s not, it’s public domain.

That’s absolutely not what I’m saying. I’m saying that the rewrite of chardet infringes on the copyright of the original work. That is neither MIT licensed nor public domain. It’s illegally reproduced and distributed copyrighted work.

Because the title of the post is

Can coding agents relicense open source …

My response was no, because the output will always be in the public domain, which is the opposite of licensed.

However your reply asked a different question:

So you are agreeing using the LLM worked?

This is a different question, because it’s asking not about the general case of “can a coding agent produce a clean-room reimplementation” but rather “did the chardet rewrite achieve the goals of the maintainer?”

It’s clear from the information uncovered about the chardet rewrite that it cannot be considered a clean-room reimplementation, therefore there is an argument to be made of copyright infringement, regardless of whether anyone can own the copyright for it.

But the title of the article is asking whether the general case is possible. In that case, an agent reimplementing a project that does not appear in its own training data and whose prompts do not contain any copyrighted source code, could in theory produce a clean-room reimplementation from functional descriptions alone, that would not violate the copyright of the author of the original project.

However in that case, the rewrite would still not be licensable since nobody would own the copyright to it.

I hope that clears up the point I was making and why it’s relevant to the post.

Whether you own the copyright to your derivative work is not the same question as whether you are infringing someone else’s copyright.

Well last I heard you can’t copyright the output of an LLM, so the entire concept of a licence for open slopware is moot.

Removed by mod

I don’t frankly care to learn what the pedo in charge of Google is called.

Blunder Pinochet. Or is it Sundial Pinoy. Or Thundercat Pyjamas.