> The mods of that subreddit appear to have come to the same conclusion.
Well, if someone whose main credential is "doesn't have a job and hence can moderate reddit full time" thinks it's true, it must be so.
> I think it’s interesting that someone posted a “my account just got busted for accidental CSAM” and nobody is concerned about the impending law enforcement consequences?
Because the law has due process? He didn't do anything wrong legally, and while his son may have, almost certainly nothing that will lead to significant consequences (at most an officer visiting and saying "don't do that").
> If this really happened then it would be referred to law enforcement
It probably was, and law enforcement probably put it on the big pile of "shit we don't have the resources to bother with". People are sending csam everywhere every day, much of it gets detected and turned into an automated report, a minority of that leads to an investigation. This probably will be an instance where it isn't.
> because companies don’t handle CSAM as internal matters that go through their appeals process. They get escalated to law enforcement.
They get... both? Obviously? They get escalated to law enforcement, AND the account gets banned. Then you can appeal that ban, and whoever handles the appeal will look at the ban reason and say "sorry, it's sticking".
If I was referred to law enforcement for any internet related offense in the UK, especially child abuse and CSAM, I wouldn’t brush it off as no big deal.
> The UK police intervene for even small possible internet offenses.
They obviously don't have the resources to do that.
> There was a story last year where someone was arrested because they posted a photo of them doing some fully legal shotgun shooting while on vacation out of the countr:
You only read reports about the things they do investigate, not the things they don't. There were probably myriad videos of shotgun usage posted last year, but only one arrest. The same would apply to almost any internet crime.
> If I was referred to law enforcement for any internet related offense in the UK, especially child abuse and CSAM, I wouldn’t brush it off as no big deal.
You would, like the OP, wait for them to show up at your door and attempt to explain it away then. Especially if it was, in fact, no big deal.
3% of millions of people is a massive number of people. Given how easy recent work on wine has made porting from windows, it's really hard to defend not having a linux version, from a business standpoint.
I don't think it changes much about licensing in particular. People are going on about how since the AI was trained on this code, that makes it a derivative work. But it must be borne in mind that AI training doesn't usually lead to memorizing the training data, but rather learning the general patterns of it. In the case of source code, it learns how to write systems and algorithms in general, not a particular function. If you then describe an interface to it, it is applying general principles to implement that interface. Its ability to succeed in this depends primarily on the complexity of the task. If you give it the interfaces of a closed source and open sourced project of similar complexity, it will have a relatively equal time of implementing them.
Even prior to this, relatively simple projects licensed under share alike licenses were in danger of being cloned under either proprietary or more permissive licenses. This project in particular was spared, basically because the LGPL is permissive enough that it was always easier to just comply with the license terms. A full on GPLed project like GCC isn't in danger of an AI being able to clone it anytime soon. Nevermind that it was already cloned under a more permissive license by human coders.
It's a /g/ meme, from where luke presumably got it.
reply