You're making up nightmarish scenarios when in fact V2G already exists (at least in some countries), allows the customers to set minimum and maximum battery levels to limit wear, allows them to set a battery level to reach in the morning (or other time) for the day's travels, are paid for the service so their electricity ends up being essentially free, and their batteries are doing just fine.

Trademarks should not even come into play. This is identity theft pure and simple and if Amazon decides to do nothing they are accomplices since they benefit from the crime along with the thief.

In other words you're fine with paying more for better quality materials but not for increasing the workers' wages above slave wages.

It's also particularly vulnerable to access by family members.

That's not to say writing down passwords in a notebook is bad, it just really depends on your threat model: who do you want to defend from? The spouse / parents / kids? Hackers half a world away? The police? Thieves out to get the code to your safe? Solutions that work for one case may not work for the other or may be totally impractical (e.g. timer-based solutions).

Not if the winner is the side that produces open-source data.

They are putting their datasets under OpenStreetMap-compatible licenses, namely the ODBL, used by OpenStreetMap itself, and the CDLA-Permissive v2. So they are indirectly contributing to OpenStreetMap. It may even be better than having them mess up the OSM data directly: at least this way OSM contributors will have an opportunity to review the data (e.g. via Osmose) before merging it.

They are putting their datasets under OpenStreetMap-compatible licenses, namely the ODBL, used by OpenStreetMap itself, and the CDLA-Permissive v2. So they are indirectly contributing to OpenStreetMap. It may even be better than having them mess up the OSM data directly: at least this way OSM contributors will have an opportunity to review the data (e.g. via Osmose) before merging it.

Then they would not have put their datasets under open-source licences, namely the CDLA Permissive v2 and ODBL licenses, both of which make it possible to import their data into OpenStreetMap, the open-source map.

That said this outcome is logical. Bullies cannot trust each other so to cooperate they need to create some neutral ground with strong guarantees. The only way to do that is to use open-source licenses and then open-source projects automatically benefit too.

CDLA Permissive v2 is apparently clearly compatible with the ODBL. So it should be possible to integrate all the datasets produced by Overture so far into OSM.

Points of Interest are a pain for maps because they change a lot more than roads and addresses: an indian restaurant is replaced by a hairdresser salon, a clothes shop closes down, etc. And it's even worse if you add opening hours, whether delivery is available, through which service, whether there's a website or if it was dropped to only keep Facebook, etc. That said the datasets (buildings, transportation) seem to go beyond just POIs.

So teaming up makes sense and, at least based on the article, their stated goal is to make the data available "for free", seemingly not just among themselves. Indeed at least two of their datasets use the open-source ODBL license which is also used by OpenStreetMap. Two other datasets are under the CDLA Permissive v2 license. The v1 was deemed mostly compatible with the ODBL by the OSM Foundation. Hopefully that also holds true for the v2.

That means it should be possible to merge these datasets with OpenStreetMap. This would most likely go through an Osmose module for additional validation. Because as much as they don't trust the OpenStreetMap, not "vetted and curated" enough, OpenStreetMap would most likely not trust their data either. Given the map spam on Google Maps I would say that's a pretty reasonable requirement.

They cannot take it over because of the ODBL license.

They cannot take it over because of the ODBL license.

1. Airlines have no control over what passengers do outside the plane so they cannot be held responsible for it.
2. Only the airports can prevent passengers from escaping. If that's what you want then that's where you need to handle it. This is precisely how it's done for international flights: you cannot escape without going through immigration and border control.
3.The "manifests" specify the passenger list of a given plane and they are established as passengers board the flight. There is no other way to handle it as passengers miss connections, are overbooked and cannot board, etc. So a passenger skipping a leg of his trip will never generate a "false manifest".

Do you really think people who intend to skip a leg of the flight are going to check in luggage? That's a guaranted way to lose your luggage!

A better approach would be to use a system like EP Tender to avoid standardization and form factor issues entirely. It would also make cars with smaller batteries viable for long distance travel which would help reduce material usage, construction CO2 emissions and cost.