Would an executive at any big tech company go to a nice restaurant and not tip the waiter? Of course not, because it is expected for them to pay for the worth.

This needs to be the case in open source. To not frame it as “donations,” but that worth should be paid for.

But how do we start this? I would love to find like-minded folks to help build a Pay It for Worth campaign. We get businesses to sign a pledge to pay for worth and give them advertising so that we get customers to see who isn't freeloading. And we get a grassroots way for small businesses to take paying for open source to be a legitimate business expense they can deduct on their taxes, unlike the current donation limit they currently have to deal with.

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.

If you're a Debian derivative user, it's called Devuan.

Otherwise...*

* Note: Removing systemd from a systemd-based system is madness. There's a reason Devuan exists, and it is that simply changing the init system on Debian results in a lot of breakage, which best illustrates the biggest problem with systemd.

Yes, that is literally the entire ethos behind systemd.

Yes, that is literally the entire situation with systemd.

This change literally could not be more on brand for systemd.

That's systemd in a nutshell. Only people like that would willingly work on a project like that.

The Linux kernel is GPL2 and glibc is LGPL, and you can construct a complete userland without any GPL3 components. Also, you seem to be under some weird misapprehension that the federal government will follow the law, which it has never done across the board.

Amendment XIII
Section 1: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction".
Section 2: "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation".

Emphasis mine.

Collaborators can get it.

Everyone is doing it wrong, that's why we need to sandbox.

Even if you were perfect, you wouldn't have time to do everything yourself, so you would still want sandboxing to protect you from the efforts of others.

"Apple has never offered a product that justified a large chassis. It used to be lots of slots, hard drives and other storage that justified it. Macs have never been about that"

I see you don't remember the 68k Macs OR the PPC Macs. Apple offered machines with lots of slots ever since the Macintosh II line. HTH.

Too much latency for RAM.

You mean running them on an external GPU? That doesn't take much bandwidth unless you're constantly loading new models.

Chinese law doesn't require a warrant for such access and it may be done in secrecy (i.e. without informing the user) if necessary to perform duties. The problem with Apple in China isn't that they aren't following the law, it's that they are and the law is openly fascist.

Check his posting history and it's very clear that he is not.

If he is not a trollbot, he is so frothy as to be indistinguishable from one. Every comment is the same.