Between Hyprland developers and Drew, I can't even definitively say who's more toxic.

Related:

https://dmpwn.info/ (Brief overview of problematic content and opinions Drew Devault associates with)

More than just that, they also ship your data off to unnamed third-parties, who have no restrictions on how they use your information, or how long they keep it.

https://withpersona.com/legal/idv-privacy-policy

I've wondered how companies like Palantir amass the datasets for their mass-facial recognition offerings, guess this is how.

There are existing services like btdig that do this via DHT, I believe.

> anyone using a public tracker in 2025 deserves anything their ISP catches them doing imo.

Or you could just use a VPN, which you probably should for private trackers too anyway.

it is my understanding that some private trackers dont allow you to use VPNs or risk a ban

Nothing says intelligent geopolitical strategy like conceding your advantage to foreign adversaries for short-term private gains.

Glad to hear, that was my immediate worry upon seeing the thread.

This would be the funniest possible future, and a very distinct possibility depending on how the NYT lawsuit turns out in regards to IP holder rights versus AI "copyright laundering".

This has always been my problem with CC-NC, its just not clear to me what counts as "commercial" or not.

Can't sell the item itself? Okay, makes sense.

What about a downstream manufactured item? Such as a CC-NC STL, where you have since 3d printed it? You can't sell the STL, but what about the printed object? If not for profit, must you necessarily take a loss, or could you sell the items at-cost?

Or offering a CC-NC item for free, in the same place you are selling other products for profit? Where the CC-NC item may be acting as a "loss-leader" to get customers to purchase your commercial offerings?

Or giving everything away, the CC-NC item and all other items, but while representing a commercial entity who is doing such for marketing purposes with the end-goal of generating more revenue for the business?

I much prefer GPL/CC-SA licenses, they're much clearer where the line sits in regards to usage.

Don't most of these licenses also include "derived works". The trivial case, you get an STL, you print the object, it's clearly derived, you get some code, you edit parts of it for a new application, it's clearly derived.

Personally I feel it's also fairly trivial that an AI model is a derived work, but...there is so much money, people risk it (eg early Spotify and sourcing music) and hope it becomes a non-issue.

HOWEVER, as China and co are going to wholesale ignore any IP/copyright to train AI models, the choice we have...may not be much of a choice at all.

>>Can't sell the item itself? Okay, makes sense.

IANAL, but I think it goes even one step beyond that, which is that the item and derived works can't even be used to support a commercial enterprise, even if the (derived) work isn't being sold or seen by the outside public.

Interesting; If true, that effectively means the answer to all my questions would be "no" then