I'm not familiar enough with the licensing. Is there a section that specifies that?

Well, yes, I think you can delete everything. Just because you released a GPL project, it doesn't mean that you have to continue hosting that project forever.

Henry Ford created the 40 hour work week because it made sense financially. He was able to coax workers away from his competitors. They had to follow suit. We will get a 32 hour work week when it becomes economically possible. Someone, like Henry Ford, will create the 32 hour work week because it makes economic sense to do so at the time. Competitors will have to follow. The government enforcing a 32 hour work week at the same pay will simply cause inflation. Works will receive, in real wages, only 80% of what they currently do (no matter how many times the government increases wages).

Imagine continuing to work for 40 hours, but getting paid for 50 hours. That extra money will now chase the same amount of goods.

It seems like this guy was just trying to impress his friends on Discord. That doesn't sound like a whistleblower to me.

Having said that, this court case seems completely reasonable. You should fulfill the licensing requirements of whatever software you incorporate into your project. That seems like a no-brainer to me.

Agreed. I don't care what other folks do with the free software that I create. It's supposed to be free. I never understood the need to control someone else's actions.

use GPL software in your project. [From a software developer with 30 years of experience.]

How many times have you found the answer to a question on Stack Overflow?

I just took a look and and seems like PNG is not a healthy state to begin with. From what I'm reading, this seems to be the norm.

I can't think of anything worse than trying to run a successful company in France.

Don't hire Jeanine Banks?

Doesn't the artist get their money from the studio?

What are the safeguards in place to avoid cheating?

Rather than the right to repair, these laws seems to be focused on forcing companies to build products a certain way. Most would choose the "right" to a slimmer phone over the "right" to repair. To me, the right to repair means that customers and repair centers can do what they wish to a product (like jailbreaking), ignoring any concerns about "breaking" security features (that are only meant to stop repairs utilizing the DMCA). That is really all that should be done for "right to repair."