With three wheels? No doubt they will, insert clip of Reliant Robins here :D

Yeah, you're a rebel for adopting software pushed into the freest OS by a Microsoft agent.

Age verification is not what is being discussed, and only an incredibly simple person who is completely unable to imagine ramifications of what is obviously ubiquitous identity verification would make such a drastic mistake. This kind of technology is an obvious component of "sending the military into [our] cities" and "destroying [our] way of life" and is in fact exactly what the followers of the orange piggy are promoting. Did you not notice what's going on with e.g. flock? Fucking wake up and learn to pay attention, fascism enabler.

Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for proving that you know absolutely nothing about the subject we are discussing. It is so convenient when know-nothings out themselves I cannot properly express my appreciation.

If it was stealing, they wouldn't have had to come up with an entirely new body of law about it.

That's easy. You just put "for non-commercial use only" in the license and give the license a new name. Then no corporate entities use it and therefore they never give anything back to the project and it dies. Mission accomplished?

I thought it was a stupid analogy until I read that. This is essentially what's happening, who's working where is the only difference. The executives love it specifically because they don't have to pay the people doing the work. We do need to solve that problem. If we're not going to solve it with UBI, which remains the simplest way to solve a long list of problems like this, then it's just going to need to be solved in some other way.

But just like best solution to the tipped wage problem is to eliminate it and make everyone pay a living wage, the best solution to this problem is UBI.

This is on brand for Perens, who was part of the OSI effort to take over the whole idea of "Open Source".

Holy shit just get it from the general fund, spending shitloads figuring out who pays how much and arguing about it in court (which is what will happen, guaranteed) is dumb when we all benefit from foss.

This is a real problem.

This is also a real problem.

This is not a real problem. Google gives away the OSS code as required. You are free to use it as you like. If you don't like being hobbled by play store requirements you can use the other pieces to build a system which isn't like that. There are already systems which do this which prove it.

That's why we now have the AGPL. You're free to use it for your projects.

The web site model is the same as the microcomputer or mainframe or SaaS model (which is old AF, consider Compu$erve) so that part isn't new. It's just come back.

I really don't think people are taking the IBM/Redhate problem seriously enough. It's open and flagrant violation because it clearly violates the additional restrictions clause.

Automakers are generally happy to sell training and service equipment to non-dealership shops. Parts can be a more complicated problem. They don't want to sell parts outside of dealership networks. However, if they successfully got rid of dealerships (and all automakers do all of the direct sales they can get away with, they would love to dispose of them) they either would step that up or develop their own service networks, or both. They would have to either open service chains or enable franchises, or I suppose simply allow the suppliers to sell parts into the channel directly earlier. They already do this, just not immediately in most cases.

If you (yes, you) want to take the same courses from Audi or Ford or Honda that the dealership techs take, you can do that. You just sign up and pay a shitload of money.

Even the entrenched automakers don't want dealerships to exist, they would all prefer to sell directly. They have better ways to keep down competition at the federal level. Dealerships just take a cut of what they could be keeping all of if they didn't exist.

I say do not let manufacturers choose, mandate that they release all documentation and software they create internally for service purposes. That's what's going to free consumers from tyranny of manufacturers and stealerships.

Anyone who participates in any of this aggressive ID verification tech needs to be first up against the wall before the revolution comes, or there won't ever be one again.

That's the opposite of how that works. It's LGPL 2 or later. That means you can follow the terms of redistribution from either license. Either. Or.

It will do the same jobs. Most of the software on which we depend predates the GPL3 and/or uses an even more permissive license without an anti-tivoization clause.

Was it the monopoly that made the difference? Or was it simply management smart enough to not only not kill the goose, but also to feed it? They had wins, they got more funding, they had more wins, repeat until they no longer got more funding and stopped getting wins. What's probably more important than why they succeeded is what happened at the end.