Keyoxide: aspe:keyoxide.org:KI5WYVI3WGWSIGMOKOOOGF4JAE (think PGP key but modern and easier to use)

  • 0 Posts
  • 42 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 18th, 2023

help-circle



  • Probably only sucessful ones.
    Google captchas have had multiple rounds (with it faking you out claiming you failed) for probably a decade. Every round of the game updates some confidence score which if you get it high enough lets you pass.
    This conversely means there is no way to fail, you just get stuck in an infinite loop of challenges if your score doesn’t get high enough.

    The only other alternative means of pricing it would see even valid users consume way more than one “verification” per actual completed captcha, since so many users have low enough scores to need multiple rounds of captcha even when completing them with perfect accuracy.
    I doubt they do this, but if they do it’s a scandal waiting to happen, besides also being very weird for any kind of statistic google certainly offers for their captcha.











  • They were doing the same on other repos for months.
    Both their npm module and android client.
    On android they tried to get people to add their own fdroid repo because the official fdroid has not had updates for 3 months due to the license changes.

    Edit: Looking at it now compared to 4 days ago, they apparently got frdoid to remove bitwarden entirely from the repo. To me this looks like they are sweeping it under the rug, hiding the change pretending it has always been on their own repo they control.

    Next time they try this the mobile app won’t run into issues, the exact issues that this time raised awareness and caused the outcry on the desktop app, which similarly is present in repos with license requirements.

    If they were giving up on their plan, wouldn’t they “fix” the android license issue and resume updating fdroid, instead of burning all bridges and dropping it from the repo entirely, still pushing their own ustom repo? Where is the npm license revert?



  • It means previous versions remain open, but ownership trumps any license restrictions.
    They don’t license the code to themselves, they just have it. And if they want to close source it they can.

    GPLv3 and copyleft only work to protect against non-owners doing that. CLA means a project is not strongly open source, the company doing that CLA can rugpull at any time.

    The fact a project even has a CLA should be extremely suspect, because this is exactly what you would use that for. To ensure you can harvest contributions and none of those contributers will stand in your way when you later burn the bridges and enshittify.