Are they actually buying licenses, or just downloading it from somewhere? OP talks about increasing market share for Win7 - not about a surge in number of licenses sold by MS.

Much more reasonable than the theory that many people would rush out to shops to buy a Win7 license just to be able to get Win10 later.

Basically no-one every buys Windows as separate retail copy. It comes bundled with a new computer. It is interesting of course how Win7 is still gaining market share.

What is the legal value of such an included license, really? You don't have the issuer's signature on it. You could argue it's "signed" if you download from the maker's web site, but not if you're downloading from a third party source, where the package could have been altered.

You buy shares in a company, knowing that the company may go bust or the overall market may go bad (in the latter case you still may receive dividends). You also know that the company may issue more shares in the future.

Taxi medallions are bought knowing there is a fixed supply of them, and that there will not be issued more. This the government has guaranteed those that buy or hold those licenses, this is what gives value to the medallion. If the government suddenly changes its mind and starts issuing new medallions to everyone that asks - or starts auctioning off new supplies - they should compensate losses for value lost due to this change. That's normal practice when a government changes a law that significantly affects the value of certain assets, as basically the government is breaking a law (albeit the legal way). That's also what gives people trust in the government and the rule of law.

These execs were arrested for running an illegal company. Drivers may be arrested for driving an unlicensed taxi. I do suspect the former is the more serious charge, especially as the business of Uber has been declared illegal already in France, and the bosses decided to continue anyway: that's contempt of court, and courts tend to not be happy with that.

If you want to stop a business, you have to chop off its head, i.e. go after the bosses. The bosses of Uber don't care for drivers to get arrested, that's just collateral damage to them. They still make lots of money off the other drivers. Getting arrested themselves may finally get the message home that they have to follow the rules and regulations of the country they operate in, whether they like those rules and regulations or not.

They may need a physical presence for other reasons, such as managing payments (much cheaper and faster to keep that within the borders of a country, or at least the Eurozone). Or dealing with complaints of drivers and customers. Or dealing with promotion of the service.

Only if the GPL code is part of your own work. OP is talking about bundling software, and then it's no problem to mix licenses: there's a lot of GPL software in my Linux Mint installation, but not all software that's bundled with it and essential for the whole to work is GPL software.

Not just that.

"Work Better" is arguably a combination of common words, it is not a name. If some glass window factory had happened to have registered "windows.com" before Microsoft did, MS would've had a really hard time claiming it's cybersquatting. Especially if said window factory would use it themselves and not offer the site for sale. Cybersquatting is usually defined as registering a domain with someone else's trademark as name, or the name of a celebrity or so, without the intention to seriously use it yourself and then trying to sell the domain to that person or company.

This is not someone registering say cocacola.com or pepsi.com, or even microsoft.com to stay with the previous example. That are clearly brand names and were at the time the Internet started well established names. It's hard to argue you want to use such domain names for your own use, unless you happen to be a Mr. Pepsi - it could be a valid surname after all.

No license: default copyright. No-one is allowed to redistribute without your express permission.

The dependencies I assume will be distributed within your package; and I assume their licenses in turn allow this, as this are open source licenses.

If so, you would be able to choose any license you like for your code - or indeed simply nothing special at all - and choose based on your preferences/philosophy on the level of freedoms given for use of your work.

It's not a dumb idea, it's just a solution that's not for the masses. I know that. My comment was mainly targeted at the idea that unfamiliar domain name means mails get deleted.

What I also wonder is whether Google instantly informed the person in question of the demand (thereby basically ignoring the gag order which they didn't think was valid anyway).

And is such a gag order even legally bounding the moment it's issued even if the receiving party has strong grounds to believe it is not? Because if it is, just by issuing gag order anyone could stop any information from being released for quite a while, at least until the court decided it's invalid. In this case Google seriously believed the order was invalid, or they wouldn't go to court over it.

Any suggestion on how to deal with mails with attachments? SA doesn't check those. And I get heaps of those "transfer done, please check your account", "here's the B/L for your shipment" and "please review this PO for your product" kind of mails that all end up in my inbox, and are apparently sent through real mailservers as they pass through greylisting.

My basic two-stage filtering takes care of most crap, the rest can be dealt with by hand. I could tighten SpamAssassin but then I may start getting false positives which is worse.

1) Greylisting. This takes care of almost 90% of spam at the door: from 350-400 spams a day I went down to about 40-50 spams a day. All mail sent through properly managed servers (i.e. servers that retry delivery as requested by the greylisting software) arrive, albeit with a slight delay the first time around.

2) SpamAssassin. Picks up about 90% of the spam that still comes through; mostly failing on spam with large attachments. Greylisting's delay allows for more of the spam domains to be in the RBLs by the time the mail arrives on my system for even better filtering.

Spamgourmet sounds like fun until they shut down.

Do you pay them anything? If not, how do they pay for that service? It'd suck were they to shut down and suddenly no-one had any option to reach you by e-mail.

Huh? That just doesn't make sense. No-one blocks mail because they've never seen that domain before, or everyone should have to be on the few domains everyone knows, like gmail.com.

I currently own almost ten domains, running four web site of which three maintained and the fourth well I basically never took it down, the domain is one that I owned for over a decade. No problems with mails getting lost for "unknown domain" or so, it all seems to go through just fine.

All is running on a cloud server, costing me $2750 a year (divide by 7.8 for US$). Web sites, e-mail, MySQL database, and a few more services. Good deal.