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.

I love Time Machine (except for how slow it is over SMB and how often the disk images corrupt themselves in ways that prevent future backups). Wish it existed on iOS and VisionOS.

That's because virtually 100% of patent holders use their patents defensively.

You missed the part where they knowingly allowed a patent to become part of a published open standard and ignored it for an entire decade, *then* started going after violations.

Oh, actually, it's worse than that. Dolby acquired these patents from General Electric two years ago. So in this matter, they quite literally ARE patent trolls. They did nothing to create this technology, but rather bought the patents to enrich themselves by becoming a leech on the industry now that companies are abandoning their codecs in favor of codecs whose encoders don't involve royalties.

You obviously don't understand patent law terminology, so let me give you a refresher:

• Defensive use of patents - patents held until someone sues you, then used to retaliate and make the other company's lawsuit more expensive and complex, usually resulting in a cross-licensing agreement.
• Offensive use of patents - suing someone else over the patent without having been previously sued by that someone else.

Suing multiple companies for violating a patent without getting sued first is the very definition of offensive use of a patent.

Those are actually separate lawsuits. (See link above.) The AV1 lawsuit is suing to stop them from using AV1 and force them to use a Dolby-licensed codec. They're also suing a Chinese hardware maker over AV1 at the same time.

The hell you can't. Patent infringement occurs on creating an instance of an invention. The moment they create source code for the software (an instantiation of the patent), they have violated the patent. It doesn't have to be instantiated into hardware or used by a business to be a violation. The patent violations began when AOMedia distributed the first beta versions a decade ago. The original patent holder (GE) did not sue.

To be fair, the reference implementation may not have been directly created or distributed by AOMedia, in which case the same applies, but to whatever company actually created and distributed it. This is largely an unimportant detail.

Businesses using products *also* infringe patents, which IMO, is a bad thing, but that's a separate discussion.

You literally didn't understand what I said.

Patent exhaustion occurs when a product is sold by someone who has the right to sell something that violates a patent, which typically means that either they own the patent or they paid licensing fees. It prevents someone from then suing downstream customers. And there is a six-year statute of limitations on suing over a patent violation. What I'm arguing is that:

• Distribution of open source software effectively occurs exactly once per version, because the redistribution permission inherent in open source software makes it impossible to determine whether a copy of the software was obtained directly from the creator on a particular date or from someone else who previously got it from the creator.
• Open source distribution is effectively a sale for patent purposes, just at zero cost.
• That sale occurred a decade ago when AOMedia distributed the reference implementation.
• Because no objection was made to that sale (against AOMedia) during the statutorily limited 6-year period, that sale should be considered to be an authorized sale, in which case patent exhaustion occurred on the results of that sale.
• All copies of the original reference implementation and their derivatives are therefore untouchable.

This is a legal theory. To my knowledge, it has never been tested in court, largely because companies do not do what Dolby is doing, suing companies for using open source reference implementations or their derivatives nearly a decade after their release. And it should be clear that this theory applies only to patents in the context of software.

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.