Hi Ludo’,
On Mon, Jun 17, 2024, at 8:11 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi Philip,
>
> "Philip McGrath" skribis:
>
>> For some reason QA still doesn't seem to be working for
>> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/71203 (a Racket update I sent on May 26), which
>> I suspect may be related to this. Could so
On Sat, 01 Jun 2024 23:24:02 +0200 Almudena Garcia wrote ---
> I've upload the recording to youtube. Currently is processing in HD.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ7bWzsL7Ps
Thank you! This is great!
> There was some problems, and there are some minutes in which the image keep
Guix sends archive requests to SWH. SWH gives that source code to
HuggingFace. HuggingFace demonstrably violates the licenses.
Guix could stop sending archive requests to SWH. This wouldn’t
*stop* the bad things from happening, but it would *stop
condoning* them. The same as how Guix not a
Hi Greg,
Please read my earlier reply in this thread[1].
HuggingFace is demonstrably violating the licenses of the Free
Software used to train its StarCoder2 LLM.
Software Heritage is continuing to partner with HuggingFace in
spite of these violations.
Guix is continuing to partner with SW
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 12:33 PM MSavoritias wrote:
>
> Ah it seems I wasn't clear enough.
> I meant write something like:
>
> By packaging a software project for Guix you are exposing said software
> to a code harvesting project (also known as LLMs or "AI") run by
> Software Heritage and/or their
What is the role of GNU Guix in this? If Guix is mainly a referral
mechanism like web page links to the actual contents, the real problem
is not Guix but the use of free software which can be obtained via
other mechanisms directly anyway to train LLMs if Guix is not in the
loop?
On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 12:21:33 -0400
Greg Hogan wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 4:37 AM MSavoritias
> wrote:
> >
> > 1. Add a clear disclaimer/requirment that any new package that is
> > added in Guix, the person has to give consent or get consent from
> > the person that the package is written i
On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 4:37 AM MSavoritias wrote:
>
> 1. Add a clear disclaimer/requirment that any new package that is added
> in Guix, the person has to give consent or get consent from the person
> that the package is written in. This needs to be added in the docs and
> in the email procedures
Hi MSavoritias,
Thank you for the email.
I’m going to lay out this situation as clearly as I can, in the
hope that others will better understand, and hopefully treat it
with the seriousness it deserves.
1. Guix requests SWH to archive some source code. This is fine.
2. SWH archives the cod
Hi Felix,
... we must hardcode some paths to /run/setuid-program/... as
in this yet-to-be-accepted patch for OpenSMTPd. [1]
...
> [1] https://issues.guix.gnu.org/71613
Oh, this is quite a tricky issue... I'm opposed to packaging software
in Guix in such a way as to rely on the conventions of
Am Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 09:35:10AM +1000 schrieb Carlo Zancanaro:
> I'm not so sure about this. To make the change that I sent I grepped for
> issues.guix.gnu.org and it showed up in hydra/nginx/berlin.scm
Indeed:
$ host issues.guix.gnu.org
issues.guix.gnu.org has address 141.80.181.40
$ host ber
Hello,
Context:
As you may already know there have discussions around Software Heritage
and the LLM model they are collaborating with for a bit now. The model
itself was announced at
https://www.softwareheritage.org/2023/10/19/swh-statement-on-llm-for-code/
As I have started writing some package
Hi Ludo'
On 17/06/2024 1:05 pm, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Hi Ada,
Ada Stevenson skribis:
I'm currently trying to help test the changes to GRUB submitted in
issue #71348[1]. Unfortunately, `make check`, whilst building the
local Guix channel, authenticates every commit. That means commits not
si
13 matches
Mail list logo
