Gplv2 violations are widespread, we need much much more enforcement and more copyleft software, and this could be a huge win. Free software's main purpose should not be to be proprietarized, too much of it now is a group effort among companies to more efficiently lure users to trade their freedom for functionality.
> It's also unclear to me what the distinction is between this part of the criteria and the RYF certification.
Ya, you are confused.
The PureOS endorsement is about a distro you can download and put on a computer (the distro doesn't include a bios or related firmware).
RYF is about all the software that comes on a computer/device, and the website you use to buy it, it's much more expansive.
So, Purism's computers are not RYF certified, but they come with a distro that is fully free (the disto does not include some nonfree firmware that comes on Purism's computers).
And Microsoft said all GPL was a cancer and unamerican and viral and disallowed it from about 50k engineer's computers due to "legal risk of GPL virality", and this was when they were by far the biggest software company. Wait, they lied? It was all FUD and really about threatening their business model. They changed their policies and actually said publicly they were wrong. Is it so hard to believe?
The "scripts to control" clause as you say is in all versions of the GPL, exactly the same in GPLv3, and slightly different I presume in GPLv2. It has been tested in court, and its been found to not be expansive like the fud you are spreading.
So, basically, exactly what the article says, a big nothing. The plants thing is stupid, rms doesn't hate plants. Sarah Mei appears to have no special reason to hate rms, shes a well known person who is extremely negative about anyone in software who's said anything offensive, including Linus, etc.
3. It is a widely known that if anyone ever associates RMS with "open source", he will interject to say that he vehemently disagrees with open source and had nothing to do with its creation. The fireball guy who posted this story, clearly knows very little of RMS to post this without mentioning the fact that this part absolutely is false.
4. He dislikes the word "open" in general, and would never ever use it to describe anything he was involved in. Again, key fact that is clearly false.
5. RMS does not usually have bad hygiene.
6. One of the people who coined "open source" was involved with VA Linux, his name was Eric S Raymond. Perhaps this this is about him.
> the border agent doesn't care if the data is technically in the cloud
In reality, they do. They are not asking you for every password you know and access to all the remote systems you have access to, and any that you can get access to if you ask someone, etc, etc.
Also, if it's built on open source as he says, that likely means linux, and tons of code that John Deer is not reviewing, so... trust you that john deer needs to protect farmers from letting people fix the code THEY WROTE. lol.
> If a team of hundred of engineers struggle with their codebase internally, Joe Farmer isn't going to have a fucking clue how to repair their software correctly.
> But trust me on this, locking this down is a very good idea.
Joe Farmer may not know, but Joe farmer has "the internet", and ability to pay an independent software engineer. And people would absolutely find and fix bugs that john deer is missing.
Honestly, your argument sounds so ridiculous, it sounds like saying "it's to protect the children from terrorism."
> What a customer gets usually is something like 7 miles per dollar. Consumer website estimate[1] that in the best of case, a mile is equal to ~$0.01, so they're also saving money there.
Your math is way off. If it's 7 miles per dollar spent on the card, that is 7% back by your math, compared to 1-2% cashback, this conflicts with "they're also saving money there."
With that math, you're saying that it's a great deal for the consumer. Perhaps the other things you mentioned still add up to being in the airlines favor, but whats really going on?
No, your comment is complete FUD. Even a cursory skim of that blog post, you can see it's about a completely different issue in the TOS and does not discuss the issues this post is about at all.
Oh ya, I shouldn't have said answer, because uniq is not a way to the answer, just something I naturally reached for while trying to figure out an answer.