upcoming EU AI Act that regulates open source systems differently, creating an urgent need for practical openness assessment

So when they say "openness" they do put it in the context of open source rather accessibility.

I'm confused... Aren't HOA reps elected by the people living in the HOA? And generally, democracy should work better on a local level where people know each other, not worse... So why do they fail so bad?

I don't know where this myth came from, but you don't have a right to erase your public posts from there internet under GDPR. See, for example, https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/32361/does-a-user-have-the-right-to-request-their-forum-posts-deleted

If anything, you might have such rights under copyright law, if your posts cover the threshold for copyright. In that case, you can ask server admins to delete them, and they will have to comply. But the request has to reach them (if they're defederated, the delete button won't teach them, and you'll have to contact them separately).

If you have a VPS with dedicated IP they you (and only you) have used for a while, would it still be blacklisted?

You can technically can your proprietary software "free" too. But that's not what the term means. And nether does "open source".

Still visiting several subreddits that don't have corresponding active lemmy communities. Once of them actually has an "official" lemmy community (run by the same mods) but none of the people moved over, so it's empty,

Never tried magit, but it doesn't matter. It couldn't possibly be good enough to be worth using an inferior editor.

The ease with which I can only commit separate hunks with lazygit has ensured I use it for commits, too. And once I've opened it to do the commit, I may as well also press P.

Not exactly. For example, you can't make the whole thing, GPL snippet included, available under MIT. You can only license your own contribution however you want (in addition to GPL).

I hold the opposite opinion in that creatives (I’d almost say individuals only, no companies) own all rights to their work and can impose any limitations they’d like on use. Current copyright law doesn’t extend quite that far though.

I think that point's worth discussing by itself - leaving aside the AI - as you wrote it quite general.

I came up with some examples:

• Let's say an author really hates when quotes are taken out of context, and has stipulated that their book must only appear in whole. Do you think I should be able to decorate the interior of my own room with quotes from it?
• What about an author that insists readers read no more than one chapter per day, to force them to think on the chapter before moving in. Would that be a valid use restriction?
• If an author wrote a book to critique capitalism - and insists that is its purpose. But when I read the book, I interpreted it very differently, and saw in its pages a very strong argument for capitalism. Should I be able to use said book to make said argument for capitalism?

Taking your statement at face value - the answers should be: no (I can't decorate), yes (it's a valid restriction), and no (I can't use it to illustrate my argument). But maybe you didn't mean it quite that strict? What do you think on each example and why?

Some regulation proposals seem fine to me, like the proposed EU AI act.

But for some of the problems the article lists, like defamation or porn generation, you just can't prevent if you have free and open models out there. You can make these things harder - and people already work on that - but if I have a free and open model, I can also change it (and remove restrictions).

The only way to stop those uses would be to keep AI tightly controlled in a walled garden. In capitalism, those walled gardens will belong to companies.

I think it can in theory, but there will be some problems. But most likely Silverblue or something else would have its own problems trying to implement something like that.