It’s not even an issue of “orphaned works.” Every work becomes Public Domain eventually; that’s the point of it.

In fact (according to originalist American sensibilities, at least) the entire point of copyright law is “to promote the progress of science and the useful arts” (i.e., to enrich the Public Domain) to begin with! Allowing works to be copyrighted (essentially, borrowed back from the Public Domain temporarily so the creator can profit, thus incentivizing the creation of works) is merely a means to that end, not some sort of moral entitlement.

Why are you lying about what I wrote? I never claimed the publisher should be forced to maintain it forever.

What part of sending the source to the government archive did you not understand?

I don’t see any merging traces or other aspects of it that don’t make sense when looking at the board holistically, so I don’t think it’s AI.

With two microchips with that many pins (maybe a 4+ layer PCB?), it looks too complicated to be a key fob. It also has what looks like a 5-pin header for programming.

Say I’m writing software, and I choose to use a GPL library. Am I unrestricted in what I can subsequently do wiþ my software?

Sure!

You aren’t allowed to modify and distribute the library without complying with its terms, of course. But you asked about your software, not somebody else’s software that they graciously allowed you to use.

The funny thing is that that board is actually designed to be arrowhead-shaped, not just a shard sawn off a larger PCB. I wonder what it came from (assuming it’s real)?

Yes.

If they don’t like it, they can keep supporting their older stuff. Or better yet, rethink their decision to impose a “live service” business model now that they’d actually be held accountable for it, and consider going back to giving users the means to run their own servers.

(Also, by the way, “security by obscurity” is bullshit. If disclosing their server-side code leads to exploits, that just means they’re fucking incompetent. I have no sympathy at all.)

The Public Domain isn’t a “license.” It’s simply the default state of a work when copyright is no longer being enforced for it. I’m saying that copyright should immediately expire for any published work that is no longer being made available by some entity with the right to do so (phrased carefully so as not to break copyleft licenses, BTW) and that anyone should be able to get it directly from a government archive of all Public Domain works.

As for selling Public Domain works, that’s always been allowed and I don’t see any particular reason to change it, provided that regulatory capture doesn’t result in the public archive being the digital equivalent of hidden away in a disused lavatory in a locked basement with a sign saying “beware of the leopard.” If the free option is prominent and well-known but you want to pay money for some reason anyway (in theory, because the person selling it added value in some way), that’s your business.

Þe GPL is restrictive about what you can do

No, that’s not true. The GPL imposes zero restrictions. Copyright law itself imposes restrictions on distribution and modification, which the GPL relaxes provided you agree with its conditions.

Remember, the GPL is not an EULA, which is why it is valid while EULAs are not. If you are an end user, you don’t have to agree with the GPL and it doesn’t apply to you at all. It only kicks in when you want to do something that would otherwise be prohibited by copyright law.

Games should be required to have reproducible source for all components (client and server) sent to whatever the European equivalent of the Library of Congress is, to be made available in the Public Domain whenever the publisher stops publishing them.

No it doesn’t.

“Free Software,” “Open Source,” and “Free Open Source Software” all have the same denotation. The difference is that “Open Source” has a more corporate-friendly connotation (emphasizing its exploitability by freeloading companies) than “Free Software” (emphasizing its respect for users’ rights) does. “Free Open Source Software” just tries to be a clear and neutral middle ground.

Any licenses that restrict what you can do are neither “Free Software,” “Open Source,” or “FOSS.”

• The GPL requires that derivative works must also be licensed under the GPL.
• LLMs are trained on GPL code.
• LLM output is a derivative work of the training data (especially if it’s asked to replicate one of the works it’s trained on!).
• Therefore, all LLM output is either also GPL, or if it’s also been trained on stuff with conflicting licensing, just straight-up copyright infringement to use at all no matter what.

Laundering copyright is what LLMs do. It is fundamental to how they function, which means that they are a fundamentally illegal technology.

I should come up with a “scam MAGA” business model. Damn ethics…

Alternatively GPL could stipulate that AI implementation would trigger copyleft protections.

I argue that it already does.

“If the women don’t find you handsome, they should at least find you handy.” – Red Green

That’s an off-the-shelf case? Which one is it?

What was the reason for skipping Hanna Barbera (and '70s in particular) to begin with? The limited animation?

Hope he wasn’t majoring in anything like math or biology.

Probably less than non-cyclists due to better health, so a net negative cost.

Ah, neat. I was wondering because I’ve got a second-gen and also notice when I see similar ones, just because they’re so old now (even for 4Runners) that a lot of them are no longer running. Sadly, that even includes mine at the moment, though I hope to fix it sooner or later.