I assume most companies write somewhere in their terms that “lifetime” means effectively “whenever the fuck we want”.

If there is a company that uses the word lifetime properly they may be worth a mention.

One man’s feature is another man’s anti-feature.

deleted by creator

Having power over others means there is temptation to use that power for your own gain, and at others’ expense. Resisting that all the time is a lot of effort. Best to reduce the amount of power to a more manageable level, and affect fewer people if not resisted.

Hopefully we’ll have more compassion in the future and treat criminals like they’re in need of help… not ideal test subjects for a new torture machine.

Who are Oracle’s customers?

Device lock-in is a symptom of a wider issue: the users are not in control of their computing. Charging for services is fine but a company deciding what you are allowed to do with your own property is unjust.

Change their post to say Microsoft’s old phone brand OS instead of desktop Windows and what changes? You don’t need to pick an equivalent to highlight a single aspect for comparison when arguing for a position.

Plex is in control of their user’s computing in a way Jellyfin isn’t. You can remove anti-features from Jellyfin software and even redistribute it. So it’s much less likely they would do something like Plex and it even doesn’t matter if they did as you can find others to work on it in a way you want. Plex is proprietary software, Jellyfin is software freedom.

That’s not the FCC people need, which needs to be able to deal with companies taking advantage of consumers (e.g. putting on illegal stickers that say “warranted void if removed”).

It’s an answer on if one is sure if they are not just a fancy autocomplete.

More directly; we can’t be sure if we are not some autocomplete program in a fancy computer but since we’re having an experience then we are conscious programs.

Is there a reason to think all the other companies couldn’t start doing it to?

The only thing one can be 100% certain of is that one is having an experience. If we were a fancy autocomplete then we’d know we had it 😉

A TV used to be clearly different from a computer monitor. Hopefully monitors resist this for longer but no reason to think this can’t happen there.

Rather have a TV from 1999. Hope LG goes under.

Talking about “IP” as if it were a single thing confuses any debate. Copyright is not a patent, which is not a trademark - they do different things.

Software patents actually should be deleted. It is impractical to avoid accidentally infringing as there are multiple ways to describe the same system using totally different technical descriptions. Copyright for software was enough.

Tax BigTech to fund a universal basic income (UBI)

With the minimal amount of work added the combined work can now have added restrictions. They’re pushover licenses.

Devs are free to choose whatever license they want but in the pathfinding problem of interacting with others then “protecting the source” is the wrong target node. Copyleft is a tool to help people.

That is what I would mean by “open source” but I can’t blame the uninitiated from thinking it means something else. Consider every-day usage of the word “open” - an open door could be fully open, just have a small gap or even shut but unlocked (“come in, the door is open”). A well-meaning developer could think Unreal engine is open source because they can see the source code (the code is “open” to them). Words don’t have innate definitions, they have usages.

The intent of copyleft is to ensure freedoms for the recipients of derivatives of your works. In software that means the users of forks. Copyleft restricts you to the same license (or a compatible one) to prevent you adding more restrictions. ““More permissive”” software licenses can be redistributed with the same license but often it’s a more restrictive license (e.g. MIT -> proprietary).

Open source is just that

“Open” is an unspecific, a range of openness from not redistributable to (libre) free software.