As usual, the unresolved underlying issue is, how to get funding for FLOSS projects. Entitled cheapskates are nothing new; a generic solution to the issue, would be something new.

What seems to be lost on most, is that money has been coming “out of thin air” for close to a century already. The problem is that every time less money gets destroyed than created, it dilutes the worth of the total… and people who still think in terms of gold nuggets, are completely unprepared to propose anything that would make sense.

Gen Beta might have more of a grasp on things.

That’s going to be a “he said, she said” case. Chances are, since she was an activist in the US, that she might’ve been labeled as an “instigator” in whatever ID database they are using.

You can learn about manipulation techniques so you can spot some sooner… but ultimately it’s up to you to make a decision, and chances are you’ll either over-react, or under-react. It’s very hard to not make any mistakes, or spot the ones who spend their whole life learning how to manipulate others.

Not really an option, when the data is being used for billing purposes (which phone, used what services, and when).

The US has no laws forcing data retention like the EU, but it would take something like anonymous micro transactions in order to have a working billing system, without collecting the data (and it being available to law enforcement).

By the time they’re about to go belly up, companies no longer have the resources to ensure they comb through the code to remove the parts licensed from 3rd parties, and the liquidators see all assets as something to sell in order to cover whatever loans the company got.

In an ideal world, consumers would never buy a non-open sourced car, or phone, or IoT device.

In the real world, regulators need to force companies to give consumers at least some basic way to control the products they buy.

Smart to have a buyback clause in the contract, otherwise this would’ve been lost and locked until the patent expired.

You say I don’t read… then proceed to explain the same that I already said? Ok.

This is going to get interesting:

The decision imposes a daily fine of R$50,000 (£6,800) on individuals and companies that attempt to continue using X via VPN.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/article/2024/aug/30/elon-musk-x-could-face-ban-in-brazil-after-failure-to-appoint-legal-representative

A judge’s ruling on a previous case makes that ruling law.

Not everywhere.

Previous rulings are a precedent in Common Law systems like the US, UK, Canada, or Australia.

Only Supreme Court rulings become a precedent in Civil Law systems like the EU, Russia,most of the rest of America.

To draw an example, the EU never made a law about cookie splash screens.

A very poor example; Privacy and Electronic Communications Directive 2002/58/EC.

The EU at its top level creates “Directives”, which member states then are bound to transpose into their national Civil Law systems. Judges can interprete that law in different ways, none of which creates a precedent. Only a country’s Supreme Court decision creates a precedent for that country, but even then it can be recurred up to the EU Tribunal, which has the last saying.