Because in that case the copyright holder is the arbitrator of the terms under which their copyrighted material can be used and reproduced. If they did not own the copyright then any “license” would not be worth the paper it was written on and no judge would allow it to be treated as an implicit contract.

The GPL is not a contract.

it’s not very funny

In order to “license” a work, you need to own the copyright.

Websites can block screenshots? Use a better browser, perhaps.

It’s an unorthodox method of games development but I think we should let them cook. I’m sure they have an ace up their sleeve.

My 1080Ti works out of the box with the bazzite-nvidia image

Does that actually prevent the app from sending the content through Apple’s servers or does it just prevent iOS from showing it in the notification area?

Well personally I don’t, but I’m not the copyright holder of the Firefox codebase.

Personally I don’t want any ad-tech related code in my browser, unless it’s for blocking ads and tracking scripts.

Allowing ads on startpage probably doesn’t really entail that though. It’s probably just a simple rule adding an exception to the blocking rules.

It’s not a good precedent though. If I was a Waterfox user, I’d be uneasy about this.

It’s a bit more complicated than that because MPL is itself a weak copyleft license that requires that the MPL licensed source code is always made available to recipients of a binary or derived work. The difference from GPL is that it does not require that all additional parts of the derived work are also licensed under MPL, (ie. not viral copyleft) meaning that the MPL licensed work can be linked with proprietary code without requiring that the proprietary code make its source available, but unlike BSD or MIT licenses it does not allow the MPL licensed code to be made proprietary.

The complication comes when linking MPL code with GPL code, even though MPL is GPL-compatible, since this requires that the entire derived work must now be made available under the GPL, while the original MPL licensed parts become dual-licensed under both MPL and GPL.

If Waterfox developers allowed this then it would prohibit the use of the whole derived work in proprietary projects (as they would now need to be GPL), so it would be removing rights that they have already given to downstream users of their code. Proprietary projects would therefore have to remove the GPL licensed additions (in this case it would be the UblockOrigin code) and link just the MPL licensed parts, which would mean using only part of the whole browser.

Personally I agree with you: I prefer GPL licensed projects. But MPL is not a bad license and I can understand and respect that some developers would make that choice (especially since the project is already licensed under MPL as it’s a fork of Firefox).

It’s easy to think it’s telling you useful information when it’s new to you and you don’t know enough to spot the mistakes.

Last time I tried asking an LLM about a command line program it gave me a command line switch that didn’t even exist in that program. When searching for the switch I found that it was for a different program completely.

Personally I would rather just read a book.

Prometheus is a very widely known and used monitoring system. You could have chosen a more unique name!

It sounds like you’ve looked into this before, so I’ll ask you: what is the use-case for per-user environment variables that can’t be achieved trivially through ~/.bashrc or /etc/profile ?

It sounds to me like the problem they want to solve is that there is some piece of information which needs to be present in the environment for every process that a user runs regardless of the context it was executed from (eg. $DBUS_SESSION_BUS_ADDRESS)?

In which case it would surely be served better by being contained in a config file in a standard location where it can be read by every process that needs that info instead of the executing process having to know the information and pass it in the environment, for every possible caller and calling context.

They can power it with that fusion reactor that we’ll surely have by then. 🦄

https://blog.qualys.com/vulnerabilities-threat-research/2026/03/17/cve-2026-3888-important-snap-flaw-enables-local-privilege-escalation-to-root

This is what happens when you rely on a sole cloud provider for critical infrastructure. If you’re going to outsource infrastructure you have to at the very least diversify among multiple providers.

Not a very good article. The original write-up (not linked anywhere in the article) is here: https://blog.qualys.com/vulnerabilities-threat-research/2026/03/17/cve-2026-3888-important-snap-flaw-enables-local-privilege-escalation-to-root

They also mention something else that’s interesting at the bottom of the write-up:

Secondary Finding: Vulnerability in Ubuntu 25.10 uutils Coreutils

In a proactive security effort prior to the release of Ubuntu Desktop 25.10, the Qualys Threat Research Unit assisted the Ubuntu Security Team in reviewing the uutils coreutils package (a Rust rewrite of standard GNU utilities).

A race condition in the rm utility allowed an unprivileged local attacker to replace directory entries with symlinks during root-owned cron executions (specifically /etc/cron.daily/apport). Successful exploitation could lead to arbitrary file deletion as root or further privilege escalation by targeting snap sandbox directories.

The vulnerability was reported and mitigated prior to the public release of Ubuntu 25.10. The default rm command in Ubuntu 25.10 was reverted to GNU coreutils to mitigate this risk immediately. Upstream fixes have since been applied to the uutils repository.

Do you mean they’re cancelling it as a tax write-off? I don’t see how you could launder money this way.

Not just a spokesperson. Cindy Cohn is a warrior queen. She’s retiring as Executive Director of the EFF this year after serving for over 10 years. She’s a lawyer who has been fighting for our civil liberties for over 20 years. Maximum respect.