The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is now on Bluesky, they announced this week. But "We can't advocate that you sign up for a Bluesky account like we do with Mastodon or PeerTube since signing up for Bluesky means loading the registration page's nonfree JavaScript..." While federated, Bluesky is generally not considered part of the "fediverse" network of social media services like Mastodon and PeerTube, as it uses its own AT protocol rather than ActivityPub... Hosting your own Bluesky "Personal Data Server (PDS)" and relay is technically possible, but generally far more difficult and resource-intensive than spinning up an instance of Mastodon, let alone any of the lighter-weight ActivityPub servers like Akkoma or Starling. Much of the Bluesky codebase is freely licensed. This allows users to run, copy, modify, and share large parts of the codebase. However, Bluesky's web client still serves nonfree JavaScript to users, just like its registration page. (Since our script was written for us specifically, we have not extensively vetted all available clients.) Why did we sign up? Simply put, we have to continue to reach people where they are. Bluesky is a decent choice for us that evades many of the issues of other, more problematic networks... We accepted running Bluesky's nonfree JavaScript a single time if it meant being able to reach people who have never heard of software freedom. The FSF's blog post advises supporters "If you're on social media, follow the FSF on Bluesky and on Mastodon today." Slashdot also has an account on Blueky.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

GCC has adopted a policy rejecting substantial code contributions generated by or derived from LLMs. "This covers not just code copied directly from tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, or GitHub Copilot, but also any versions of the code later edited or rewritten by a human, provided that the final contribution is still based on material generated by the system," reports Linuxiac. From the report: The important point, then, is not whether a developer has used an AI tool at some stage in their work; contributors can use LLMs to discuss ideas, understand existing code, learn about a field they are unfamiliar with, or carry out general research. The limitation lies in the inclusion of copyright-significant material generated by such tools in the code submitted to GCC. The policy also provides for a few limited exceptions; GCC maintainers are allowed to accept changes that are legally insignificant or trivial and are generated by an LLM, on the condition that they meet the project's normal contribution requirements and the use of an LLM is clearly disclosed. Furthermore, copyright-significant AI-generated test cases could still be accepted. Since test cases usually involve small programs which are intended to reproduce compiler bugs or to verify certain behavior, the policy deals with them separately from code that is incorporated into GCC itself. It does not follow that merely looking at or altering the generated code makes it acceptable. By the rules that have been adopted, a contributor cannot take substantial implementation produced by an LLM, clean it up manually, and then treat the resulting patch as if it had been originally written by them. Once a contribution has been derived from generated content, it is still subject to the policy.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.