My Tech Blog

Reminder I am not a cop, not authority

A Gun on a Police Officer’s Belt

What does it mean?

It means authority has the potential to take life when it sees fit.

If there is a crazed gun man in a mall, shooting up fellow citizens, that is a good thing – ability to stop swiftly matters.

If authority is corrupted, and likely is in some countries then a gun on a police officer’s belt might represent systemic oppression, losses that can’t be fully gauged or communicated.

Leaders, including World Leaders are authority, but they don’t walk into Peace talks with two revolvers and a cowboy hat. Less than ideal leverage factors into leaders capacity to communicate, extra leverage like guns at the table likely not ideal leverage out to facilitate greater peace.

Deterrence has value does not always equate to ideal comprehension of value it adds and subtracts.

I don’t want people messing with me, I don’t want people messing with others, I also don’t want people thinking I will go wild west on the place to stop the problems.

Deterrence, like a gun on the belt, or connections to authority might lead to perception of oppression. Perception of oppression influences decision makings like who people date, who people can make friends, what career paths people may pursue in their life does not feel like ideal American Dream – I want better for others.

Might be a good idea at times to turn up back off on people given unknowns, has the potential to disenfranchise the wrong fellow citizens without trying to. Authority that has gun on the belt might encourage people to not be close in proximity, further away is not always ideal support, ideal conversation inspired.

I want cops and authority to have friends, I want all people to have friends and be supported. I will say reminders of potential for death like seeing guns might lead to less feeling of open conversation.

Add in oppression, changing political climates people might get saddled with less than ideal burdens. Non-violent actions and movements, protests that don’t include violence might factor into less police with riot gear, less problems in advance is powerful hard to ideally turn up.

Friends growing up might get set on both sides in different ways, when I was younger I know I didn’t have full appreciation for complexities, can’t say I fully comprehend complexities now. Friends set against each other happens, gets turned up based on a lot of factors, more than just the friends interactions themselves. Blessed are the peacemakers, and desire to profit, make support sufficient in life, make gains, choose teams, choose sides might less than ideal that peace, equating to less blessings, and as I want others to be blessed trying to inspire better for the future seems apt.

Interesting note on sleep and suicide, jails employ 24/7 lights at times likely to prevent people from being shived, combination might be less than ideal for all parties.

I would like to see all the hostages released swiftly, I want our allies supported, and my supply lines are currently being if-ed in ways that I don’t appreciate. Head starts factor into and facilitate greater support in the future.

Reminder I am not a lawyer

I was looking at installing Audacity – a sound recording program because Adobe Audition is having issues for me

The following license talks about your output is yours if it is not a covered work

The GNU General Public License v3.0 – GNU Project – Free Software Foundation

yet

“A “covered work” means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.” – GPLv3

A sound file created via a program that is licensed under GPLv3, a covered work or not a covered work?

Generally, I would think of covered work as a derivative application, like releasing your own version of Audacity, yet the way it is described seems like could get some to buy in and some to be leveraged which is not all good. Music producers having their capacity to profit off their work set to null does not seem like the goal of Audacity and other Free Software.

“The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. ” – GPLv3

“Audacity is free software. You may use it for any personal, commercial or educational purpose, including installing it on as many different computers as you wish. Audacity is licensed under the terms of version 3 of the GNU General Public License (GPL) as published by the Free Software Foundation.” – Audacity license, hyperlinks on words not in this quotation

An output sound file is a work based upon the Program?

Blender also uses GPLv3 and states

“What you create with Blender is your sole property. All your artwork – images or movie files – including the .blend files and other data files Blender can write, is free for you to use as you like.

That means that Blender can be used commercially by artists, by studios to make animation films or VFX, by game artists to work on commercial games, by scientists for research, and by students in educational institutions.

Blender’s GNU GPL license guarantees you this freedom. Nobody is ever permitted to take it away, in contrast to trial or “educational” versions of commercial software that will forbid your work in commercial situations.” – License — blender.org

““The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and “recipients” may be individuals or organizations.” – GPLv3

A work based upon a copyrightable work, like a derivative work?

Doctors, Cops, and Authority have time costs and legal costs, sometimes less might be more for those trying to release open-source software The MIT License – Open Source Initiative, yet I do understand the problem with free not always left free

More to factor in might lead to early divests, more legal ground if-ed might lead to early divests. People provide Free Software to enable the World, Future Generations thus I would like people to be able to invest with less burdens.

Corporations might lobby Government officials into creating new laws that allow companies to employ tivoization

“Tivoization: Some companies have created various different kinds of devices that run GPLed software, and then rigged the hardware so that they can change the software that’s running, but you cannot. If a device can run arbitrary software, it’s a general-purpose computer, and its owner should control what it does. When a device thwarts you from doing that, we call that tivoization.” – A Quick Guide to GPLv3 – GNU Project – Free Software Foundation

Golden Rule for Startups and people with less funding for legal fees?

Imagine you are stuck in Jail being oppressed, and your lawyer is reading this contract discussing the nuances of how output and capacity to profit might be if-ed all while you sit in jail?

Same contract in 2024 that was released in 2007, maybe I am missing something

I am not trying to demonize lawyers, I am trying to say throughput has potential to be reduced in real ways not always considered, for lawyers and others in society. Throughput losses and time losses are real, might leave less prepared and enabled at critical times.