Yes. And that doesn’t excuse it; a moderator should be better than the community they moderate.

“childish trolls in this community”, “this community is full of trolls”, “90% of folks here dont get the issue and rather troll”

The people who coined the term “open source” are the same people who founded OSI. If you don’t like their term, don’t use it.

It doesn’t actually contribute to the discussion.

Yes. You are free to distribute it in any way you wish. Some methods, like printing books, have a raw material cost. You can choose to pay someone to distribute via that method, or if you really want to, you can do the printing yourself at no cost but your own time and effort.

If you don’t want to give it away for free, then just don’t make it FOSS. It’s that simple. People use free-libre licenses because they want to use that license model. If you don’t want to, then don’t.

Depends. What are you planning on using a VPN for?

*regressive

Broadcom is so good at it, they wrecked VMware years before even completing the acquisition.

I’m surprised mods and admins don’t have the option to choose not to distinguish their posts and comments.

I don’t blame him, I blame his staff. A routine procedure, meh. But he goes into the ICU, his staff should be notifying the White House and the deputy, and probably the joint chiefs, among others.

Pentagon officials also failed for two days last week to notify Austin’s second-in-command that he had transferred authority to her while he was in the ICU, and while she was in Puerto Rico.

That’s the real goof. I don’t really see a problem with the secdef being hospitalized and not immediately notifying the President. They need DoD stuff, they call on him, and if he’s not available, for any reason, it should immediately fall to the deputy. The White House staff, and especially the deputy, should have been told.

Ultimately this just seems to have been a breakdown in communication, but even if war were declared, I don’t think it would have been a significant issue. This is media hype bs to distract from real issues.

There is already some debate about what time of year the birth actually happened. Most people agree that regardless of the actual day, it probably wasn’t Dec 25 (or the equivalent if using other calendars). That’s just the one that people agreed to use.

Not exactly. Most Christian holidays are redefined existing holidays. Christmas was “oh everyone already celebrates a feast around midwinter, let’s make it a celebration of the birth of Jesus so we can still do the celebration but in a Christian way”.

Right, but it’s not a pure list of facts. When you set it to paper, it’s unique, and you could argue it’s art. In fact, a quick Google search found one such example: https://www.saatchiart.com/art/Painting-Shopping-list-1/2146403/10186433/view

Granted, that one was presumably intended to be a work of art on creation and your weekly shopping list isn’t, but the intent during creation isn’t all that important for US copyright law. You create it, you get the rights.

I’m not aware of any federal case law on copyright and AI. Happy to read some if you have a suggestion.

It’s the plot point, but also spoilers, kind of? Part of the game is discovering what happened.

I’m expecting temperatures to drop afterwards and everything to turn to ice.

copyright only protects them from people republishing their content

This is not correct. Copyright protects reproduction, derivation, distribution, performance, and display of a work.

People also ingest their content and can make derivative works without problem. OpenAI are just doing the same, but at a level of ability that could be disruptive to some companies.

Yes, you can legally make derivative works, but without license, it has to be fair use. In this case, where not only did they use one whole work in its entirety, they likely scraped thousands of whole NYT articles.

This isn’t even really very harmful to the NYT, since the historical material used doesn’t even conflict with their primary purpose of producing new news.

This isn’t necessarily correct either. I assume they sell access to their archives, for research or whatever. Being able to retrieve articles verbatim through chatgpt does harm their business.

That is not correct. Copyright subsists in all original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102

Legally, when you write your shopping list, you instantly have the rights to that work, no publication or registration necessary. You can choose to publish it later, or not at all, but you still own the rights. Someone can’t break into your house, look at your unpublished works, copy them, and publish them like they’re their originals.