Assuming the entity you borrowed the book from had an authorized copy to begin with, the First Sale doctrine allows said entity to do anything they want with it: lend it, destroy it, put it under the short leg of a table, whatever. There is only ever one authorized copy in the current scenario.

Humans are allowed to learn from *authorized* copyrighted materials, i.e., you bought a book so you have an authorized copy. Meta is using *unauthorized* copyrighted materials, hence guilty of copyright infringement. But you would also be guilty of copyright infringement if you obtained an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted material.

That can happen regardless of who or what is driving.

At first I thought they meant the historic cars from the 1930s they run in service every Sunday in December. I'm glad they're not permanently retiring those.

Most users use whatever the default is. Most users don't even know you can change the default.

But I've always felt FOSS is doomed because of the fundamental confusion about what "free" means.

It's been doomed for 40+ years.

I mostly agree, but:

Before Zelle, it actually cost me money to send someone money.

Using either PayPal or Venmo, it's never cost me anything.

You can connect cities in the Midwest with conventional high-speed rail for a fraction of both the construction and maintenance costs. There is no value-add for Hyperloop. There is no operating Hyperloop anywhere in the world for a reason. It's a dumb idea.

This wouldn't ever be true any more than it's true now that rental car companies are on the hook for cars in their fleet with defects caused by the manufacturer.

Open Source is about source visibility; Free Software is about source USE. They are very different things.

How much closed-source free software is out there? Visibility has been a necessary condition for use.

Open Source exists to serve developers. Free Software exists to serve users. Some developers understand that they are also users.

I'm not so sure about your intended audience for open-source. My impression of OS is that it's just a different label for what is a superset of FS, i.e., software that's gratis, but with licenses other than GPL; but who they serve is pretty much the same.

I really have no idea how you drew that erroneous conclusion. As I said, I develop open-source. I know it's been useful to others. Some of my code has been used at CERN. I was even paid once to dual-license code for Qualcomm. So I know it's useful.

The idea of paying open-source developers comes up every few years. I don't get it. The whole point of open-source is that anybody is free to download the source code, build it, and use it gratis. Why should anybody have to pay for it? I develop open-source and I don't expect to get paid for it. If you really want to get paid, make it closed-source, keep it open-source, but dual license it (one license for commercial use), or simply don't work on open-source.

Then there was this article wherein Perens wrote:

.. Open Source has completely failed to serve the common person. .. [I]f they use us at all they do so through a proprietary software company's systems, like Apple iOS or Google Android, both of which use Open Source for infrastructure but the apps are mostly proprietary. The common person doesn't know about Open Source ..

Since when was open source supposed to serve the common person? AFAIK, it was to serve developers who could study it, possibly make changes, and incorporate it into their own open source projects. Common people simply don't care, and never will care, about how software works, just that it works. Perens then replied. (You can read his post and my follow-ups. My last comment (to which there is no reply) is here.) At some point, Perens just stops responding. The comments that were posted by Perens and others seemed orthogonal to open-source.

And apparently you're among those people who don't understand the First Amendment. Here it is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It doesn't say anything about "government issues" nor anything about the intended recipient. It's about speech on any subject to anyone. Courts have also held it's not only literal speech.

I bought a 2022 Kona EV. (One needs to specify EV since Hyundai also makes a Kona ICE.) I've been very happy with it. I don't remember now why I preferred it to the Ioniq. Unfortunately for me, the 2023 Kona EV added the vehicle to load feature, so I missed it by 1 year. That would have been nice to have.