tring to locate an aticle from Oli Warner to build secure Ubuntu KIosk from Ubuntu Server

and Stripping down Ubuntu Desktop to Secure Ubuntu Kiosk

please help

Have you tried Googling "Oli Warner build secure Ubuntu Kiosk from Ubuntu Server and Stripping down Ubuntu Desktop to Secure Ubuntu Kiosk"?

See the links here: blog.fireheart.in/…

which link to (oli's?) a blog

thepcspy.com/read/building-a-kiosk-computer-ubuntu-1404-chrome

thepcspy.com/read/converting-ubuntu-desktop-to-kiosk

I have been reading every AU question tagged USB for the last seven years. I perused the above Roel Van de Paar site for hours and could not find a question that I recognized from AU. I scanned this site: ubuntu.forumming.com for about a half an hour and found over a dozen of my questions and answers, word for word. There were fake names on each one. I would not mind at all if they used my real user name.

@Zanna I understand SE's licensing itself is a little in doubt and quite fishy. see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_Exchange - Declining relationship between users and company. If SE wants to persecute other sites for promoting Ubuntu they should send their Lawyers, they have the money, it is not up to SE's users. to try to close other sites.

One person trying to destroy another persons hard work and their effort to help others with their understanding of Ubuntu makes me feel a little sick. I would not assume good intent at all.

@C.S.Cameron the company changed the version of the license without consulting anyone. Seemingly the new license would apply retroactively. Understandably, people found this problematic, but since most users are unaware that they are granting this license by posting on SE sites anyway, and the licenses are really similar, it's not as big a deal as it might be

I am not exactly clear on your position, but I think the CC BY-SA license is great

it protects the right to share information freely

that's the entire goal of it

if people repost SE posts without attribution and without licensing information, then people have to assume that no special license applies to the material, in other words, they have to assume that they have no right to copy / redistribute it

so that is bad

@C.S.Cameron I reported about this site to Stack Exchange. I didn't get any response from them yet.

afaik it is indeed up to the licensee (SE or SO) to enforce the license

@Zanna and no one noticed for years 😅

@C.S.Cameron personally I don't think scraping and reposting information that is already available in order to get page views is hard work intended to help people with Ubuntu... I think it is exploitation

one could argue that Stack Exchange is exploiting people like us who post here and take care of the site, but that doesn't seem right - we've chosen to do that

(the fact that the licensing information is tucked away in the terms of service is bad though)

People interested in alternatives to SE can check this site:

linux.codidact.com

(but I do think that people who post on SE sites generally do so out of a general desire to improve life for others and would probably like the CC BY-SA license if they, er, actually were informed about it :/ )

@RandomPerson interested in what?

:)

by contrast, I think that many people who post here would be unhappy about their work being copied / scraped and reposted under someone else's name

so I think that reporting such things is entirely justified

one reason to support attribution is that it provides some accountability and means of improvement - I for one would like to be contacted about errors and out-of-dateness in material I've written

@RandomPerson wow cool, more CMs!

better go cook dinner

@Zanna yup..

@Zanna me or you?

hahaha you can cook it if you want, I'll just relax instead XD

I meant I better go cook dinner

@Zanna haha.. I am a bad cook

@Zanna OK..

@RandomPerson no worries - I am a tolerant eater. You can practise on me XD

my mum says that her idea of good food is food cooked by someone else XD

When will the Coomunity Ads be shown? Any idea people?

@Zanna haha.. sure!

@Zanna I have not posted questions and answers on Ask Ubuntu to become famous or so I could strut and act like a big shot. I try to do what I can to help others discover Ubuntu. most of my effort involves installation and USB installers.

@C.S.Cameron ... I feel like you are twisting my words

Hopefully this is why others post on AU, I really don't mind if my work is totally PD or not. I can't see why other posters would mind either, as long as they know their work is helping others

Well at the end of the day it's personal choice. Are you OK with someone else taking your content and claim that it's theirs? If yes, no issues. If no, you can report it. It's just personal choice and there's no right or wrong in this situation.

@RandomPerson I disagree with you, because if people take your content and claim it's theirs successfully, they can potentially litigate against you and anyone else who copies the information. The license is designed to prevent such things

@Zanna I think the date and time of posting matters. So it's not that easy to litigate against one without checking the date and time of posting. But, yeah... people can even copy dates and time :(

the point is that the whole point of Creative Commons is to help people by making information free

BTW, has any such litigation ever happened in the history of SE?

the regular copyright that applies by default is way more restrictive

so I am upset that @C.S.Cameron seems to have it all back to front

@Zanna yeah.. I know...

@RandomPerson I doubt it

@Zanna is this the correct meaning? dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/…

@Zanna hmm.. OK.

@RandomPerson no, I mean, the wrong way around

Ok..

if you want to help people by sharing information, you should consider CC licenses to be on your side

anyway I think this is me right now

I should get over it

@Zanna haha...

@Zanna Ha Ha also, I have empathy. I do not mean to twist your words, just to express my feelings about this situation. I am against people trying to do other people harm without good reason. like because they try to pass on information with out following someone else's rules? If any action is taken it should be to just ask these websites to give credit where credit is due.

Nobody intent on sharing information should be upset about sharing MORE information, unless money or ego is involved

@C.S.Cameron if they gave attribution, that would be perfectly OK

the fact that they don't suggests some ill intent on their part

@C.S.Cameron in this case, "someone else's rules" is essentially "if you copy this, you have to allow other people to copy it too"

@RandomPerson I also disagree with you because, let's say someone does object to having their material copied in this way... is the plagiariser in the right until that person finds the material and raises the objection? I would argue that they were in the wrong the whole time. Simply one should not copy material without abiding by the terms under which it's been made available, because the originator should know what they've agreed to

@Zanna OK!

haha sorry

@Zanna why?

for being obnoxious

It's ok..

@RandomPerson so, do the ayes have it?

If people feel that it will fill the chat transcript, we can make feeds bot post similar to how U&L posts tagged Ubuntu are shown

also I may be just wrong... it happens regularly

hmm..

It's OK to be wrong. We learn from our mistakes :)

I agree thoroughly, but that doesn't make it less annoying to others

@RandomPerson I feel they would be more useful as permanent messages

we must make sure we fill up the transcript with plenty of just-shooting-the-breeze so that nobody can say that the chat is dominated by feeds

I guess we can trial it for a month

Random quote:

"It is a paradox that every dictator has climbed to power on the ladder of free speech. Immediately on attaining power each dictator has suppressed all free speech except his own."

— Herbert Hoover

these quotes don't seem all that random 😅

Sorry, chiming in on the "scrapper" and licensing very late. Just a note that the person posting (i.e. you) are still the copyright holder. The Stack ToS specifically says that you license (not assign) the content to Stack. You also grant Stack the ability to sublicense that content. But nowhere does Stack claim the copyright on your posts.

This means that, as the copyright holder, you can still request a DMCA takedown on YouTube of anything that you originally posted, assuming the CC-SA is not being followed. Well, you can do a takedown request regardless, I guess, but you should only do it if the terms are violated.