At a minimum, an AI agent needs its own limited account. It should never have access to the human's account, the principal's account. And the human should have extensive control over what the AI account is authorized to do.

Sorry online services, it would be so much more convenient for you to just let AI agents have access to your currently human user based designs, principal based designs. But AIs are agents, not principals. Principals need to be able to control their agents. You need to design a secondary form of access.

Looking forward to seeing the Apple belt clip that will come with iPhones. :-)

Well, as long as the AIs tell us how to get to Mars we'll be OK. :-)

You are using FSF's made up freedoms that are part of their dogma. Their well meaning, but they are essentially political dogma nonetheless,

Nope. Remote access was a thing long before the GPL. Yet they chose to focus on distribution of a binary executable to trigger their new rules.

LOL. We were talking about how people wanted UNIX on the desktop.

You confuse the concept of "freedom” with user benefits achieved through force. Again, "benevolent ruler” is far more accurate.

Again, you ignore the fact that the GPL also allows the developer to deny a user access to source code. All a developer needs to do is not supply a binary. Lock up the binary on a server behind a web interface and changes to GPL’d code remain proprietary.

Shocking! Absolutely shocking! We increase electrical demand through various public programs, but fail to support increased supply, and brownouts and blackouts results. Shocking!

Well, at least my boss is no longer annoyed with me for nagging him to get the team desktop UPS. After the last local brownout his boss complimented him on having the foresight to equip his team properly.

Yes, I am a fool. My small company pays taxes to the federal government and the state of california. :-)

Thanks for bringing up its microkernel nature. Another improvement over Linux. :-)

Nope. Due to the lawsuit there was an injunction against distributing code. The lawsuit also caused corporation to pause BSD rollouts. That opened a rather big door for Linux.

Nope. Many developers were also motivated by the desired of Unix on PC hardware, and were license agnostic. Again, the lawsuit helped here too. Injunction, doubt about the project's future, that also led some developers to Linux. Developer support went the less legally encumbered path.

That's just a cherry picked few that GPL advocates like to point to.

Reality is the GPL is not a very popular license. Its target a Linux eco system thing due to Linus' choice. Linux made the GPL, the GPL did not make Linux. Outside Linux, for new project, GPL is rarely chosen. Its a niche license outside the Linux eco system.

You are projecting. I don't give a rat's ass what license software uses. That's the developer's choice, whatever they chose is fine. Mac, Window, Linux - different tools for different jobs. I never embrace the religious aspects, neither Mac or Linux.

LOL. You had to snip the desktop context, "BSD today is bigger than Linux. macOS uses FreeBSD. Apple contributes code and pay for some FreeBSD developers."

I think the context is implied - play songs you haven't heard before on Spotify. It definitely has your Spotify listening history.

The lawsuit occurred at a critical moment as both FreeBSD and Linux were becoming useable, 1992. There was an injunction against distributing source code.Corporations reluctant to adopt it given the uncertainty. This was a massive opening for Linux. I started using Linux around 1993. It was a godsend for grad school, my university had a BSD based program. At work many engineers were desperate for Unix on PC hardware. And for school and work, Linux was a fine Unix.

BSD today is bigger than Linux. macOS uses FreeBSD. Apple contributes code and pay for some FreeBSD developers.

Only a minority of users. Most Linux users, then and today, just wanted Unix on PC hardware.

"Usurp" is mistaken. BSD code was originally written by the University of California, a publicly funded entity. The BSD license reflects this making the code accessible and usable by ALL taxpayers, which includes commercial companies.

By being less free, of taking away options. The GPL is based on the "benevolent ruler" concept, not freedom.

Also, the GPL does allow companies to "usurp" code, as long as the company does not distribute the binary of that code. Put the code on a server and only let the public have access through a web interface, perfectly GPL compliant. Google for example.

Again, true freedom lets you choose. Apple chose to share. They contribute code and pay for some FreeBSD developers.

Apple's macOS. Apple contributes code and employs some FreeBSD developers.