• xlash123@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    7 months ago

    Commit 77a294d

    Update maintainer and author info. The other maintainer suddenly disappeared.

    Lmao, that’s putting it lightly.

    • kadu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      I agree we should support him, but you know who should be more concerned with giving him and other open source maintainers money? The billion dollar corporations that rely on these critical projects and use them absolutely for free. Amazon, Microsoft, Sony, Samsung, Google, Siemens, Motorola, God knows how many more.

          • qaz@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            What about a license that would require every company with a market cap above 25 B that (indirectly) uses the software to contribute X amount (like $1000 a year) of revenue back?

            • paraphrand@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              I think if that caught on then companies would call it undue burden to sift through all the dependencies they use to make such small payments.

              It is a difficult problem. But on the face of it your suggestion seems very reasonable.

              • qaz@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                7 months ago

                GitHub has a tool built-in to show all dependencies, it’s not that hard to write a little script to check the LICENSE files in the repositories. I’m sure one of the biggest companies in the world has the ability to do that.

          • someacnt_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Ofc I exaggerated, samsung is not a monolithic entity. I mean most, if not all, on the managerial position would not care at all. Also, does being android-like mean they are receptive to OSS?

            • BreakDecks@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              © 2024 Tizen Project, a Linux Foundation Project. All Rights Reserved. Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds.

        • TdotMatrix@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I gotta hand it to Samsung that they outline all the open source licences they use, at least in their Galaxy smartphone products:

  • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Can someone provide a summary on what this means? I thought there were malicious exploits in this. Why is it back up and the perpetrator unbanned?

    • 4am@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Exploits were removed. Maintainer who committed them still banned. xz is a critical piece of software.

    • pixxelkick@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      Lasse is the original maintainer of XZ, they have been placed back in their position as sole maintainer.

      “Jia Tan” was the person who slipped the backdoor into XZ and is now banned.

      Lasse has already fixed abd removed the backdoor.

      XZ itself is critical software everyone uses (its one of the main compression/decompression programs used on linux)

      • Auli@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Yes but damage seems to be done. Distros are talking or have moved off of it to zstd.

        • Billegh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          There are some, probably. But any exodus will be slow. Xz isn’t useless because it was dangerous once.

          • intrepid@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Besides, XZ isn’t the only project in such a danger. Banning doesn’t solve that problem. They need to put in more funding and eyes.

        • PlexSheep@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Zstd and xz fullfil different needs. Xz take more time to compress and is faster to decompress as far as I know.

        • Calyhre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          I would argue this might make xz safer mid-term. So much eyes on it. I’m not familiar with other solutions, but who’s to say the bad actor won’t try a similar trick elsewhere

        • treadful@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          It’s just a question. Any implications or tone you perceive here is likely your own projection.

          Try and read it assuming the poster is asking in good faith.