irotsoma

I mean LLC is just a nice option if you want it to be easy to transfer it to someone else next time so they don't have to go through any hassle. Adding someone to an LLC to have control over the assets is just easier than if an individual owns those assets.

But this all comes down to ownership. Someone owns the rights to the domain. Sonatype obeys that ownership. So it really comes down to how the owner wants to handle it. And in the US anyway, lawyers aren't really required for an LLC, depending on the state you live in. Many it's just a couple of simple documents and a small fee. That's why LLCs are used by rich people to hide their money, it's cheap and easy. I've done it many times in multiple states for various projects and never had any legal background. The nonprofit part is a little more work, but as long as you aren't bringing in any money, its not necessary. Still easy in practice, but more research to figure out. Also, it comes with a lot of benefits like free access to a lot of stuff, including some from Sonatype. But again, not required, just thinking ahead and how I would do it.

First step would be just to contact the domain owner. If they are no longer interested in owning that asset, then they may just give it to you. If they are unresponsive and the domain is not in use for anything else, you could also contact the registrar and report it and if they can't contact the domain owner there's a possibility that they may allow you to purchase it depending on their policies.

Again, don't get discouraged, and I'm totally willing to give pointers if you decide to go the nonprofit LLC route, but first, just contact the owner and maybe they'll just give you the login for the domain registrar or if they don't want to give up the ownership of the domain, maybe just authorize you with Sonatype to publish the artifacts. Essentially, because it's an ownership issue, the owner needs to be involved.

I would required compensation in the amount of Elon's entire fortune so it can be properly redistributed to those who deserve it, including you if this is a human reading this email. If those terms are acceptable, please contact me at xxx-xxx-xxxx at your earliest convenience.

Only the owner of a domain can publish a package attributed to that domain. Otherwise you'd have random hackers publishing malware as an Apache project or something. All you can do is try to contact the owner of the domain and see if they are willing to transfer ownership to you, or better yet, set up a nonprofit LLC, or whatever it's called in your country, to have it transfered to.

This. Get in writing the specific legally binding policies for personal use of their network resources. Not just the personal opinion of the IT people. They don't write the legally binding policy that you are responsible for following.

I get the idea of wanting that lifeline in case of an emergency, but I agree, constant tracking is toxic. I'd never give a corporation my kids' information just for some small convenience like that. Basically selling their future for almost nothing. By the time they grow up, potential employers and governments will know every place they ever visited as a kid, even places that might have been technically trespassing or politically divisive in the future. Kids need to learn and explore and be guided on what's right and wrong, not be punished for minor stuff they did as children their entire lives.

Someone in charge is getting a kickback or is heavily invested in the company that supplies the facial recognition service.

I mean, in most cases this isn't criminal law (in the US at least), so it means you have to attract enough attention of a corporation since they're usually the only ones who can afford the legal costs to file the DMCA requests and responses for copyright violation. And with many other civil issues, often corporations with the money for it, don't have standing to sue, and if they did, would be required to sue each individual in the appropriate jurisdiction.

With the removal of Section 230, these costs will go down significantly as a single user's violation could be enough to bankrupt or shut down an entire site of violating content or, if serious criminal violations like child porn, put the person who hosts the site in prison who, will be much easier to identify and sue in a single jurisdiction or arrest than a random internet user.

Yeah, other countries have similar or even more strict requirements, so yeah it all depends on the jurisdiction. You have to also understand that just hosting something externally, doesn't mean you don't fall under laws of another country. It's the internet. And if you live in a country, you may be held responsible for obeying their laws. I'm not a lawyer, so it's something to be careful of even if externally hosted.

This is especially necessary to consider if you live in the US right now. One of the things the current administration is pushing for even harder than past administrations is removal of Section 230 of the communications act that was enacted in the 90s. This provides a defense against liability for the content you host as long as you make a reasonable effort to remove content that is illegal. Problem is that this makes it really difficult to censor (maliciously or otherwise) content because it's hard to go after the poster of the content and easier to go after the host or for the host to be under threat to stop it from being posted in the first place. But it's a totally unreasonable thing, so it basically would mean every website would have to screen every piece of content manually with a legal team and thus would mean user generates content would go away because it would be extremely expensive to implement (to the chagrin of the broadcast content industries).

The DMCA created way for censors to file a complaint and have content taken down immediately before review, but that means the censors have to do a lot of work to implement it, so they've continued to push for total elimination of Section 230. Since it's a problematic thing for fascism, the current administration has also been working hard to build a case so the current biased supreme court can remove it since legislation is unlikely to get through since those people have to get reelected whereas supreme court justices don't care about their reputation.

So, check your local laws and if in the US, keep an eye on Section 230 news as well as making sure you have a proper way to handle DMCA takedown notices.

Are there any guides to using it with reverse proxies like traefik? I've been wanting to try it out but haven't had time to do the research yet.

Not offering a solution here exactly, but as a software engineer and architect, this is not a Linux only problem. This problem exists across all software. There are very few applications that are fully self contained these days because it's too complex to build everything from scratch every time. And a lot of software depends on the way that some poorly documented feature worked at the time that was actually a bug and was eventually fixed and then breaks the applications that depended on it, etc. Also, any time improvements are made in a library application it has potential to break your application, and most developers don't get time to test the every newer version.

The real solution would be better CI/CD build systems that automatically test the applications with newer versions of libraries and report dependencies better. But so many applications are short on automated unit and integration tests because it's tedious and so many companies and younger developers consider it a waste of time/money. So it would only work in well maintained and managed open source types of applications really. But who has time for all that?

Anyway, it's something I've been thinking about a lot at my current job as an architect for a major corporation. I've had to do a lot of side work to get things even part of the way there. And I don't have to deal with multiple OSes and architectures. But I think it's an underserved area of software development and distribution that is just not "fun" enough to get much attention. I'd love to see it at all levels of software.

Problem is that unless the person was paid for contributing, what goods or services are being exchanged with the project. I mean if Microsoft received money from that person for a subscription or something I might see them having to ban the user and refund the money. But what did the project receive that would violate sanctions? Volunteer work is usually not covered or else relief organizations and religious missionaries would be banned and the US historically loves sending those. What am I missing?