He apparently did not directly fund Hamas, but his government did allow money and resources to Hamas despite the blockade in place around Gaza since 2017. Claiming that Israel does not control Gaza is nonsensical with that blockade of air, land, and sea in place. Hamas's tunnels to Egypt are the only unfettered trade with Gaza.

Gay has agreed, publicly, that she should have simply said that calls for genocide are a violation of Harvard's policies. It would have been that simple at that moment.

She's next on the list. She actually has degrees in political science and genetics. It will be fascinating to see how she handles or continues to cope with the gender diverse activists who are campaigning for Hamas and for Jewish genocide with the refrain "From the mountains to the sea!" It is equally fascinating to see how someone with a degree in genetics deals with the politics of gender ideology and its new focus, anti-Semitism.

There are some published analyses of these missiles, and their manufacture is astonishingly poor. There are some fascinating analyses. The video below shows images of how badly the propellant is packed, and describes the resulting failure modes.

        https://www.youtube.com/shorts...

That is one of the problems with modern scholarship. The original data can be dangerously poor, or incomplete, but the layers of meta-analysis are astonishingly vulnerable to bias. I'm afraid it's not merely a problem in the soft sciences: the "dark matter" proofs seem vulnerable to similar over-complex analysis of what is quite limited raw data.

That is a great question. I think you'd have to make it distinctive enough to contain some significant element of creativity, rather than merely copying other, previous and even public domain work. The GPL was distinct enough that copyright law might, indeed, be relevant, especially if modified without permission. Duplicates of the Bible with edited content were one of the first reasons for the existence of copyright.

You've a point. Many, though not all, BSD licensed tools do indeed publish their source code. I'm afraid I can't solve all the inconsistencies of OSI licensing, I wish I could.

The damage has not yet been sufficient to eliminate all the bad choices of recent years. The wholesale replacement of CentOS with AlmaLinux seems to be working.

Please, check your sources. They are indeed "open licenses" according to https://fossa.com/, the Free and Open Source Software Alliance. The Open Source Initiative, the OSI, also disagrees with you. See https://opensource.org/license... to confirm that the Apache License Version 2, and many BSD licenses, are indeed considered open source licenses.

I've read it. It's quite toxic.

Fedora is, and has been, a team player. The most recent Red Hat releases have gotten strange about packaging and licensing, but they seem to be learning their lesson and reverting to more sane practices such as publishing the packages they use to compile their software.

Many BSD variants have existed with astonishing restrictions. Apple's IoS is one of them, with a great deal of digital rights management and top-down censorship of applications built into the operating system.

The FSF owns the copyrights of the text of the license. Unauthorized copies, especially violating the license itself, are not only ironic but a straightforward copyright violation. The manipulation of the license seems to be pretty deliberately deceptive rather than freedom of expression or fair use. I don't think these companies have a legal leg to stand on.

Richard M. Stallman is also no longer very active in the FSF: he's fighting lymphoma and is very ill at last check.

Ahh, I see where they added another nine charges to the original 4. The accumulated charges after those additions still amount to only 35 years, according to the Wikipedia notes. Where is your number from.

JSTOR is still _very_ generous with its low fees, its astonishing breadth of content, and its long habit of turning a blind eye to subscription violations. The annual rate for an individual is $200, and their fees for licenses and universities are _very_ low for the content provided. Since JSTOR is purchasing and republishing copies of _all_ the journals, they really can't go lower without stealing journals themselves.