I don't personally have a problem with a system being locked down in general. I have a problem with my computer being locked down, or getting rootkits installed on it. So for me at least, playing those games on console is a good solution.
That's the seperation of concerns that drives me to a Switch alongside my computer. Though I'm by no means a "serious" gamer by most people's standards.
You can purchase TrueNAS hardware + Software pre-configured. It is not clear what the individual you were responding to was doing, but I have personally experienced many off the shelf, supposedly ready to go IT solutions that require as much tweaking and admin time as a custom solution. But different folks have different skill sets, too.
Umm, there is. Basically, thats the default in most of the world. My recomendation if that is what you want to do, is to put a note in the readme and in LICENSE.txt that says "this project is copyright by me. If you want to use i, reach out to me and if I like you, I will give you a license". Then if you like someone, give them a written statement that you like them, and grant them permission to use your project(s), and under what terms, if any.
I can't imagine that it wouldn't be. If a company has explicit written permission from the copyright owner granting permission to use that copyright, then they can use it.
Also, it wouldn't be a special license. If you wanted to do a "For my friends everything, for my enemies the law" thing, you'd just set it as all rights reserved and add special note encouraging people to ask for permission to use it.
Plus, copyright enforcement typically goes in the other direction. It's not about who you can sue, it's about who you can't. Licenses are just a way of specifying who you cannot sue. If you want everybody to use your project but don't want to bother with a license, you can make it all rights reserved (the legal default) and just not sue anybody. You could sue them if you wanted to (which is why nobody would ever use your code: because of the risk that you change your mind and sue them), but nobody is forcing you to.
Why would it not be enforceable? If you own the copyright on your software anybody that wants to use it has to get a license from you. The traditional way is for you to sell those licenses for money, but you could also decide to give them away based on how much you like the buyer.
Or a hybrid, sell them, but refuse to sell to certain entities and discount up to 100% to others based on how much you like them.
Of course it is, that’s literally contract law. You’re agreeing a contract to licence them access with specific terms.
The reason they invented the standard licences is to avoid this cost and effort. Do you really want to write a 200 page legal contract for every user for software you’re giving away for free?
Is that the implication? I thought that the legal contract you mentioned was a standard document, basically the same for everyone that was licensed. But I am not s lawyer, and I don't pretend to be one.
It would be neat to have this licese codified (Like we have MIT, GPL, etc), with the proper incentives to "ask for open source access, if I lile you, you might get it". And, of course, a "contract" that gave licensees the open source benefits.
One of the open source benefits is the ability to distribute the software to others under the open source license. So if you gave your friends an open source license (which you can do) they could then license the software to anyone else they want to under the same license (As that is part of the definition of open source). If you want to restrict them from doing this, you could make your own custom license that restricts this (but it would not be open source).
For non Germans, can you explain what this would mean? I read a machine translation of the article, and basically it seemed to be claiming that forming a tax exempt open source foundation in Germany would be easier if this were approved? But I may be missing some nuance in both the translation and the German legal and tax system to fully understand it?
In the USA, open source foundations can be non-profits, usually they are formed for scientific, and sometimes maybe educational purposes. (The allowed exempt purposes of a 501(c)(3), the most common type used for open source foundations, are "charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals".) There are other requirements that must be met for exemption as well.
I am curious how German and US laws differ in this regard, if you happen to know more about it. Thanks!
These are different concepts. What you are describing is an organization not operating for profit, which Germany of course has too. This is about open source contribution being an "Ehrenamt", which is when an individual participates in certain volunteer activities without pay. E.g. being a volunteer firefighter would be such an "Ehrenamt".
This is about recognition for individuals (which is much if what an Ehrenamt even is). Besides some very minor tax benefits, only applicable under certain circumstances, where you earn some money from your Ehrenamt activities, all this is, is an participation award for volunteer work.
OpenWebUI isn't Open Source anymore. Open WebUI has an egregious CLA if I want to contribute back to it (Which I wouldn't do anyway because it isn't Open Source...)
Onyx Devs: This looks awesome, I will definitely add it to my list of things to try out... close to the top! Thanks, and please keep it cool!
Honestly, it is a difficult case. The consumer is obviously on the higher end of wealth here, booking a premium hotel suite for an expensive event.
Then, the consumer criticizes those of us that enjoy backpacking as not being "adults". This one really got me.
The concept that advertised prices that are genuine mistakes are generally not enforceable is a well established concept in many jurisdictions.
With that being said, I do believe that honoring ones advertised prices, even when they are mistakes, unless it would be egregious or impossible to do so, is generally a better way to do business.
But will this story prevent me from using a convenient and less expensive platform for booking cheap, bottom barrel hotels, for those of use who aren't "adults"? Probably not.
It's not a mistake to forget to apply a surcharge in my opinion. The "mistake" was that they underpriced the market, as the booker hedged their bets on the two weekends. A "mistake" would be $1 instead of $1000 which is the example in the TOS.
A company can be a sole proprietership or partnership without registering with anyone, but in this case in most states they must either conduct business in the owners/partners names or register a DBA with the state(s) they are doing business in. (the rules are state specific, and I think there are some states that don't do kr require DBA registration). In most cases, a company with billions invested in it will be formed as a formal entity such as an LLC or Corporation in a state. Again, the specifics vary from state to state. If you knew the legal name of this entity, and what syate it was registered in, you could probably look up when it was registered in that state.
However, details like owners and organizers aren't always Available.
It gets further complicated with Series LLCs.
Congress passed a law that would have required "beneficial ownership" registration with law enforcement (FinCen), however, this registration would not have been public.
Further, it was found unconstitutional and enforcement of the registration requirement indefinitely suspended.
In general, if you are doing business in a state under a name or entiry other than your own legal name, you will be required to file something with the state, and that filing will include a registered agent where legal process can be served on the business, and this information will be public.
But if they aren't doing business publicly yet, no one will know the name of the business, so they can't look it up! It sounds like the name mentioned in the article may just be a code name.
Legal name changes are handled in state courts, so there may be different rules depending on your state, but generally I think you could get away with it if you really wanted to... but doing business as a sole proprietor means you are personally liable for everything the business does. Way simpler and better to just form an LLC in most cases.
