There are rights and responsibilities associated with a proprietary model… and IMO you (and your permissive government) should not be overriding those rights for your own short-sighted benefit.

Kind of sounds like you misunderstood the initiative to be honest. This only affects games which have been abandoned by the developer, the proprietary model stays perfectly intact as long as you actually keep selling your games.

Ross is just doing PR basically, you can see the legal organisers of the petition here: https://citizens-initiative.europa.eu/initiatives/details/2024/000007_en

deleted by creator

Not familiar enough with this particular project to know, but a quick glance at the commit log shows some overlap in commit authors, so I guess there is at least some level of sharing happening, probably just not through merges.

But being familiar with this kind of project in general, the branches will probably never be fully merged even in the future, just doesn’t make much sense because they are server software targeting very different versions of a game client. There are also two other branches, but they “only” diverged by like one or two thousand commits so far.

Meh, essentially it’s just writing “Telecommunicationsourcesurveillance” as a single word without the spaces to indicate it’s a singular thing being referred to (in this case the concept of directly listening on the source device before encryption happens). Might seem weird I guess, but you get used to it pretty quickly.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telekommunikationsüberwachung#Quellen-Telekommunikationsüberwachung

It means “telecommunication source surveillance”.

Well I for one (not GP) am actually quite glad that it is literally illegal to publicly display here in Germany, especially with the current political climate going on here and elsewhere. You want to just out yourself as a Nazi? Okay, off to prison you go. That’s good. AFAIK there are exemptions for temples and such, e.g. for artistic uses like Games, some Wolfenstein games replaced swastikas in the German release because nobody was sure if that’s legal.

I don’t think it is actually illegal to display in any country that has a lot of people using it religiously, but yeah it’s a sad fact that it still has to be illegal in so many places such a long time later.

I guess he means cruel as opposed to “accidental”. He’s trying to make clear that it happens deliberately.

Well now you lost me entirely. All I wanted to say was that the Geneva Convention is (part of) international law.

Or in other words: Geneva Convention ⊊ International Law.

Hence my confusion about your confusion.

Here’s a big UN document about what Israel can and cannot do under international law…

TL;DR.

Again, I wasn’t agreeing with OP above, I was just pointing out that GC I Article 21 is applicable in Gaza since Israel is a signatory and thus Israel has to follow it (at least de jure if not de facto). This is the case even when Palestine isn’t a signatory to GC I because of Article 2.

I don’t quite follow, the Geneva Convention is international law. All international law is essentially just contracts between nation states, and the GC is one of those.

Wrong again, this is Protocol I which Israel isn’t a signatory to. What I linked is Convention I which Israel is a signatory to.

And this also has nothing to do with the claim you made even if they were, you claimed the Convention doesn’t apply to occupying forces when it explicitly states that it does apply.

Also note that I’m not saying Israel did abide by it (doubt it honestly) just that they are subject to it.

This section of the Geneva Convention does not apply to a belligerent occupying force.

Wrong, see Article 2.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

This particular Russian attack seems to have been retaliatory in nature, because right before it Ukraine attacked Russian territory including Moscow with hundreds of drones at the same time.

Reported on here for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBAIalMNCAA
And here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NbxXJJJNZk

I figure the logic of escalation here is something like “If Ukraine can already make massive strikes on Moscow with self produced drones there isn’t much sense in keeping up the range restrictions on NATO equipment anymore”.

Hier ist der Link zur Bildserie (siebte Bild): https://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/bilder/regierungswechsel-100.html

Hier ist der Link zum Bild: https://images.tagesschau.de/image/24994fe4-1875-49a1-bc83-dab937fce9c6/AAABlqt3kkI/AAABkZLk4K0/16x9-768/oezdemir-baer-100.jpg

Hmm, the thumbnail change doesn’t seem to have federated to lemmy.ml or other instances (so far at least), but it shows on lemmy.ca. Interesting. Thanks for updating it.

I see the Reuters video has already been posted to this community, so I’ll refrain from cross-posting the Guardian article here as well. @engene@lemmy.ca if you edit the post and set the following as “Thumbnail URL” it will show up in the websites/apps better: https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/e439f142-4f5c-475a-b1b0-d0ee102de6f7.jpeg

Guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/30/venezuelans-sos-texas

Image embed:

Well actually “don’t do anything illegal” seems to be the thing giving an easy win to cops and politicians here.

“Oh, they are ignoring the laws and putting people in concentration camps? Just politely tell them they are wrong, that’ll show them!”

And you are free to believe otherwise. But sadly I don’t see legal protests having any effect on a government actively seeking to undermine the rule of law.

Insisting on the confines of legality when the opposing side has shed any pretence of legality months (arguably years) ago is… a stance to take. Just not a winning one.