hmmmm… I see your point. Maybe I wasnt explaining my point clear enough. Right now, I cant see someones fork of some software if I’m on some gitlab which is not federated afaik. I should have said discoverability I guess. Does that make more sense?
I mean, not saying anyone should, because evading copyright is bad. But technically, you could run say forgejo as an onion service. Connecting git to clone from it would take some extra steps but, if hidden well it’d make it somewhat harder to take down.
Evading oppressive mechanics is always a great idea imho but I digress.
I’m not really talking about making it unable to be taken down, which is already what happens when you put it in a non public repo. I’m talking about exhausting the corpo and damaging their image for going after people using software to play their bought games on their pc. It could kick off a trend of peeps shaming corpos (especially nintendo) for going after legit players who want control of their devices and property. (whoever feels like pointing out that “technically you just own a license”, just dont).
I’m talking about exhausting the corpo and damaging their imag
All you’ll be exhausting is an AI. They’re using AIs now to write the DMCA requests, which actually does lead me to wonder if such takedown requests are even legal (an AI can’t, to my knowledge, legally represent the interests of a legal person). But the point is, if you’re thinking of “exhausting a corpo” you’re thinking it wrong.
Because you are not exhausting parts that actually get exhausted, nor that can actually get a harm to reputation in their industry due to association to the corpo. If you want to go after a corpo, you go after the employees, the physical facilities (they cost money and time to rebuild / migrate) and, if possible, the jobhunters.
Not sure I understand. I should be able to fork a public repo across instances, no? Why bother otherwise?
Federation has nothing to do with that capability.
git cloneexists since the beginning of git.hmmmm… I see your point. Maybe I wasnt explaining my point clear enough. Right now, I cant see someones fork of some software if I’m on some gitlab which is not federated afaik. I should have said discoverability I guess. Does that make more sense?
I mean, not saying anyone should, because evading copyright is bad. But technically, you could run say forgejo as an onion service. Connecting git to clone from it would take some extra steps but, if hidden well it’d make it somewhat harder to take down.
Evading oppressive mechanics is always a great idea imho but I digress.
I’m not really talking about making it unable to be taken down, which is already what happens when you put it in a non public repo. I’m talking about exhausting the corpo and damaging their image for going after people using software to play their bought games on their pc. It could kick off a trend of peeps shaming corpos (especially nintendo) for going after legit players who want control of their devices and property. (whoever feels like pointing out that “technically you just own a license”, just dont).
All you’ll be exhausting is an AI. They’re using AIs now to write the DMCA requests, which actually does lead me to wonder if such takedown requests are even legal (an AI can’t, to my knowledge, legally represent the interests of a legal person). But the point is, if you’re thinking of “exhausting a corpo” you’re thinking it wrong.
Please tell me more why my thinking is wrong /s
Because you are not exhausting parts that actually get exhausted, nor that can actually get a harm to reputation in their industry due to association to the corpo. If you want to go after a corpo, you go after the employees, the physical facilities (they cost money and time to rebuild / migrate) and, if possible, the jobhunters.