Xi attempting anything resembling public magnanimity is a joke.

Meanwhile China's in the throes of deflation and domestic demand destruction. Subsidizing even more low-to-no-profit industry is not what the doctor ordered.

Triggering a foreign economic collapse would kill their exports which are the only thing holding up their economy.

I'm of the stance that AI could be good to check my code and test it, then let me decide what to do.

I need to understand what I have in my code to trust it to work and be secure so an AI generated snippet might be working well but be hard to understand. Such code can be very hard to maintain.

It is generally possible to download without uploading. You'll just likely get a dribble of data when you do.

AGPL is a plague. GPL, I tolerate, though I have a strong preference towards v2. But AGPL has no redeeming qualities. The hypothetical world where someone creates a closed-source fork of a web service, convinces everyone to use it, and then holds their data hostage just isn't particularly plausible.

Meanwhile, AGPL precludes any interesting integrations, custom in-house authentication systems, using custom database backends, and all sorts of other stuff that potentially is useful to keep company-proprietary, but that has no impact whatsoever on the hypothetical freedoms that the AGPL is intended to protect.

It's a license that is so toxic that even companies that are strong proponents of open source with large open source offerings have outright bans on letting AGPLed code anywhere on the premises.

As far as I can tell, the main benefit of AGPL is for companies that create code and want to release it to the public as "free software", because by requiring contributor agreements, they can keep their own branch proprietary while forcing everyone else in the world to comply with the AGPL, thus ensuring that the only company that can create their own proprietary features is them.

It's definitely an interesting case, but it doesn't fit the original description. The GPL didn't prevent Linksys from strangling the free version of anything. No free WiFi routers ever existed, and Linksys did not destroy demand for the Linux kernel or the GNU C library.

Also, nothing in that case forced Linksys to open anything. They could have switched to a BSD kernel and C library, and they would have been in compliance. They chose to open it because they figured it was an easy way to make the case go away, and it could produce good will in the community. And it ended up being a minor windfall for Linksys.

The definition is literally in the clause - the president gets a salary for being a president and nothing else.

Crystal clear.

Lol

Most Presidents have avoided investment portfolio changes so as to not stir suspicion. Don doesn't give a shit how it looks.

They made a political calculation to ask under oath about an affair that was nobody's business, hoping to catch him in a lie. I believe the word here is "entrapment". So the GP is right about when it started; he/she just incorrectly understood which party started it.

It was always the Republicans.

Nixon tried to start it back in the 1970s. He just found out the hard way that there were still too many Republicans with morals and ethics remaining in the party. So they spent the next four decades driving them out. What remains is the shell of the former Republican Party, surrounding a core of rot and disease. And that is why "President" Trump is still in office.

Hence the numbers I gave. Most people questioning authority do indeed just want some other authority in power.

With AI agents not even being remotely secure, anybody running this is asking for it.

This is about keeping the market _diverse_. It is anti-trust measures that keep capitalism from devolving into monopolies. It is good for consumers and keeps vendors on their toes. It keeps innovation going. But lots of clueless Americans apparently want to be abused by big-tech.

Just that it is neither IP not trade secrets this is about. Try to keep up, you sound very stupid.