Copyright only protects a specific artistic expression, not a concept.
So you can use the concept of a giant floating eye with ten eye tentacles that shoot lasers. Full stop.
But you can’t call it a beholder (due to trademark, not copyright), and you can’t use their artwork of the concept.
Bullies gonna bully. I’m sorry this happened to you, but I’m happy you know who they are.
Dm me the discord link and I’ll jump on
I would like to help. Please put me on the list.
Bless you, hero
I hate Microsoft edge with a burning passion, and Microslop tries to force me to use it when I click any link from Outlook
Your tools actively make my job HARDER
It is so obnoxious. Fuck Microsoft, fuck Edge, and fuck Outlook.
So if you have a hysterectomy then you’re a man?
The W2
I guess I have product fatigue. Keeping up with the current set feels like a chore. Every universe-within set that comes out has me hyped, and then it’s gone in a few weeks.
Totally agree, but I don’t even feel hyped about the new sets. They are just so much churn.
can you post a picture of what the single banana looks like? how much stem do you leave on each one? nothing? so the tip of the edible fruit is showing?
I’m curious but kind of skeptical tbh
AGPL, along with all code contributed having copyright attributed to the project is the only true way. this is because MIT allows companies to internalize projects and completely co-op them.
The important detail of making this work is creating secondary commercial licenses which companies can use in order not to reveal or contribute code back. this provides a mechanism for open source projects to make money, while protecting the end users. which have come to depend on it, or which may have contributed to it as an author. this need is why the copyright attribution to the project is necessary for all contributions.
I cannot understand why this is not a more commonly chosen path. it really strikes the perfect balance between allowing companies to use code in whatever way they might need to (as long as they are willing to pay for it), creating support for open source projects, and preventing and shitification of successful open source projects which users support.
importantly, any such commercial license is offered should include prohibitions against re-implementation, as well as time limits so that the software cannot continue to be used indefinitely if an unanticipated but non-breaching use creates risk to the original project
this looks incredibly helpful; thank you!
I will read the instructions and try it out.
what billion dollar put?
thanks for the tips! I am trying to run nixoa on an old Intel iMac and wireless and sounds are broken. I will search for the Broadcom driver you mentioned.
and whether he has enough liquidity to maintain his margin during absolutely insane market distortions by hedge funds, big banks, and the government.
the logic is simple, but you are ignoring it.
you are providing examples where language is consistent with an algebraic formulation, and ignoring examples where it clearly is not.
if examples of both exist, then you plainly cannot treat language like algebra, because it’s not always correct.
you only need one counter-example to disprove a thesis. instead of discussing the counter examples provided, you think that providing more examples of consistency contributed to the conversation.
sorry, but they don’t. that’s not how logic works.
the op post is correct: being anti-anti-X is not the same thing as pro-x
try this:
Christopher is an anti-theist: he actively believes that all gods and theologies are stupid and wrong, and that God does not exist.
John is an anti-anti-theist.
does that mean that John MUST be a theist?
no.
thankfully we didn’t need linguistic games to recognize Trump as a fascist: his actions make him what he is, regardless of his position on antifa.
stop providing them with traffic and attention
Awesome!