Simple fact checking: Norway is actually not part of EU. It does have many agreements with EU in the same way that Switzerland does.

He didn't invent version control software, but he surely contributed to it significantly with developing git.

Before git, there were RCS, CSV, subversion, and probably many other software that I don't recall. All of them were very centralized.

As none of them fully met the needs of a project like the Linux kernel which drove Linus to developing git.

What about cross-compiling the kernel, in that case?
I reckon that there are many platforms with insufficient resources to compile the kernel, and this has apparently not been an issue.

Isn't that what Android is for? There it is the opt-out of the walled garden.
The main grippe that Zuckerberg has with Apple is only because Meta cannot track users without obtaining their consent; i.e., how everything should have been in the first place.

This is true but recall that in order to install homebrew, youâ(TM)ll still need to install the Xcode CLI tools. I use that approach: CLI -> brew -> pyenv -> python -> pip

This said, my comment above is playing the devilâ(TM)s advocate, and I personally donâ(TM)t see why having to install the CLI tools would be a problem, especially given that it is a painless process.

As you point out, there are many other ways to install python for those not versed into terminal too (eg, anaconda, pycharm or other packages).

This application of copyright law is properly ridiculous and wouldn't stand in a court with a sensible judge.

A definition of the word "copy" yields (New Oxford American Dictionary):
1 a thing made to be similar or identical to another
2 a single specimen of a particular book, record, or other publication or issue
3 matter to be printed

Therefore, in that context, the first definition applies. A copy of something, by definition, implies that one should be able to use it in the same ways as the original (being similar or identical).
In the case of a dish, taking a picture cannot hence be considered a copy since I can eat the original, but not the picture (even less so when it's digital). What definition of similar can actually lead to consider that a picture (even more a digital one) is even remotely "similar" to plate with food in it no matter how beautifully arranged?

Likewise, merely taking a picture of a building won't provide me with a roof, and how can it be a copy?

This is somehow illustrated by Magritte's 1948 painting of a (smoking) pipe: "ceci n'est pas une pipe"
http://tinyurl.com/owclu9e

To conclude, it seems that everything revolving around copyright nowadays has become lightyears more surrealistic than one of the leading surrealist painters of the twentieth century.