I don't see anything in the text of GPLv2 that says the seller is responsible for ensuring the buyer can exercise/fulfill those rights. It says the buyer has the rights, and it obligates the seller to distribute source code to the buyer, and it says if the seller is under some restriction that prevents them from complying with the terms of the license they may not distribute, but I don't see any obligation to ensure the buyer can exercise the rights separate from the obligation to distribute code to them. But I think that obligation is to the copyright holder, not to the buyer, which means we still have the issue that only the copyright holder has standing to sue.

Your suggestion that the seller be responsible for "fulfilling" the rights might have been a nice improvement to the GPL if it could be written so it achieved your goal of giving the buyer standing, and without creating unacceptably-broad obligations on the seller (a stupid and contrived example: What if the buyer were unable to exercise their right to modify the software because they don't know how to program? Is the seller obligated to train them, or make modifications for them?). I think this might be possible... but in any case it doesn't seem to be present.

If there's some part of the license text I'm missing or misunderstanding, please point it out.

That would have no effect on the fact that the owner of the copyright (which is the original author) is generally the only person that has standing to sue for infringement of that copyright. You would own whatever code you contributed, but since you're saying the result would be an exact duplicate, you apparently didn't contribute anything.

This is a silly comment. No language is going to help you when you turn off the features that make it helpful. But the fact a language CAN help will obviously reduce the problems you have.

It's not as if all code in the kernel needs to be unsafe. Most of the complex code in the kernel - networking protocols, file systems, USB handlers, etc, can be 100% safe as none of it needs direct access to hardware or memory. It's only the hardware access, IPC, scheduler, etc that needs to be unsafe, and even then not all of the code implementing that, just small chunks that need to do specific things.

The bigger issue with the unsafe keyword in Rust is that you're not discouraged from using it unnecessarily, and there's an unfortunate attitude within the Rust community that it's entirely OK to use it to try to get 5% more speed or whatever. But Torvalds is free to impose a "No unnecessary use of "unsafe"" mandate, and probably should. (And the Rust language folks need to understand that some of their policies, including this one, undermines the entire idea of Rust in the first place. Safety should come first.)

Google's ranking algorithm downgrades sites where content is dominated by ads, so I think the dynamic here is the other way around: Recipe sites layered on huge numbers of ads in order to generate revenue, which caused their search ranking to drop, so then they had to go all-in on SEO to fool the ranking algorithm into raising their visibility.

The trick is not to go after his wealth. The trick is to go after his family's wealth: bankrupt and jail his kids. If you don't, you just leave disgruntled rich control freaks free to attempt to *retake* the kingdom after daddy is dead.

Unfortunately flattery doesn't feed the kids or pay the rent.

One of the more appalling things I've seen in the US on this stuff is people saying "Well actors are so well paid why should we care". The thing is theres a very very tiny number of actors that are paid well, the stars. But the vast majority, and the ones currently being sold by the AI firms as being replacable by AI, are background actors and bitpart actors and these are the guys who MIGHT be getting $30K a year if they are in regular work, and more likely far far less (The mean wage for actors is around $56K but its heavily skewed by a small number of very highly paid star actors so in reality its down around the $40K wage. Burger flipper wages.

And thats not even touching on the majority of workers in film, the crew, who have been getting fucked on ever since covid, worse in LA where large numbers of crew have been struggling with the fallout of the fires.

Fair enough. It deserves to be known widely.

I TOO AM ANGRY AT EDUCATION.

My dude. You might be the first accout I've seen where almost every post is marked -1 TROLL

I'd suggest sitting with that fact for a while, but I know your not here to think are you champ?

I'm not a fan of the unsafe keyword and Rust's rather over-relaxed attitude towards it (I feel alarm bells should be ringing when it's used and when you drag in a crate that uses it), but there's a world of difference between C where everything could be unsafe, and a language where you have to explicitly say "Wait, this bit, this code that's going to remap a memory segment or bit bang a cheap serial port input, needs to be unsafe, so I'll wrap this tiny bit of code in an unsafe block, and audit it as well as I can, while taking advantage of Rust being able to detect issues in the rest of the program."

I'm inclined to think Rust is being used mostly in the wrong places at the moment. Kernel development is actually a great place for it, because you can do these kinds of mixes of code, while a more unsafe-hostile language should be being used for the video games and (largely pointless) rewrites of command line tools. Especially given the unaudited crates.io crap and risks it brings.

Google is not the alternative. Unfortunately the alternative, selecting systems where your data isn't in the hands of third parties, is intentionally being made hard, and people don't want to do it.

Im actually not a fan of the AGPL at all. I think its intention is noble, but in practice it tends to get used as a shareware license instead of a free software license.

The GPL is very clear about its mandate. You can do whatever you want with this code, as long as you dont go distributing it, and if you do distribute it, here are your responsibilities.

The AGPL however violates GPLs freedom 0 , the right to USE the software however you wish (as long as you dont distribute it without source and a few other distribution requirements).

That means , for a start, its not compatible with GPL2 (GPL3 has a waiver for this). But to my mind the bigger issue is how its used. I have found very few examples of AGPL3 being used without an option of "dual licensing" (aka "shareware"), and since the AGPL3 pretty much prohibits almost any commercial useage as part of a web service, the end result is a license that effectively say "You cant test this, but if you use it for real, you must pay up".

Its a shareware license, not a free software license.

The goal (not yet achieved, obviously) is to build AI that can learn how to interact with humans the way humans do, not to build machines that need carefully-curated data and instructions. We've had those for three quarters of a century now.

Cooperation would, indeed, be better. Unfortunately both sides want to ensure that only they win.

China is the enemy because Realpolitik asserts that there can be only one top country.

I don't know. Having people working there under assumed names sounds sort of like "Manhattan project" level security. I.e. it's a big secretive project with a lot of government backing". I'll grant it's a wildly overused metaphor, but that just means everyone will recognize it.