What’s the issue? They didn’t like your licence terms, and rewrote the library under a permissive licence? You don’t have a right to users or an audience.
I agree with that, I never said that was the issue. If you read my message, I answered to:
> but the only thing that protects Free Software (open source) is copyright law
I was merely asking them to elaborate on that, because IMHO, copyright law doesn't protect copyleft licences much (I mentioned people going for or rewriting permissive alternatives, which is now a whole lot easier with LLMs), and copyright is not protecting permissive licences at all.
I have been in companies that distributed hundreds of copyleft and permissive binaries without mentioning them. Copyright says that "in theory, it was illegal". In practice, nobody cares.
I see value in open source, but I don't think that copyright is the only thing protecting it.
Yes. "You choose to sign the contract" is not a reasonable argument, for two reasons:
1. There is one supplier, so you have no choice.
2. Even if you had a choice to sign the contract, this still means that it's not the same as a trade-in, because trade-ins are always voluntary, but once you have signed the contract, a right of first refusal is not.
In general, the "you chose to sign the contract" argument is a poor justification for bad contracts. If the contract is bad, it is bad regardless of whether you chose to sign it.
Given that it includes health care, education, and a ton of vacation, yeah, they will find that they lead a much better life.
The goal isn't to maximize the number. The goal is to lead a good life. The number can help with that, but not if you focus on it to the exclusion of the things that matter.
Are you trying to be deliberately obtuse? Obviously, you can fudge the number with assumptions around churn rates/etc, but of course an investor would want a view of the rough 12m state of the business.
...which is why we have GAAP-recognized metrics, right? To prevent fudge-ability? And those metrics.. they're deliberately not publishing? Makes you think.
GAAP is basically a standards body to recognize practices.
When there are interesting stories that can't be told with GAAP metrics, accountants derive new metrics. Just because they haven't gone through the standardization process yet doesn't mean they're bullshit - investors in Anthropic can hire auditors to ensure the Anthropic metrics are still meaningful. There are a very small number of deep pocketed investors in Anthropic - they're not a public company like Enron trying to sell to the WSB crowd, or like 2007 CDOs being sold to dentists.
And run rate has been a widely recognized metric for SaaS as long as it has existed - it has meaning and can be audited.
You're just going to Galapagos your economy. Consumers won't put up with high prices and inferior goods. Unless you want to restrict internet/information access so your consumers don't know what they are missing out on.
Well the short version is that Robert Rubin and company sold our industries for parts years and years ago. And now we have to rebuild the industrial base from scratch
Nah, I live in the UK, prices are higher than eu, public service is much worse, but public are voting for the party with members that brought this about.
Varies by jurisdiction. Residential leases typically require notice, and inedequate notice (both by time and by method) nullifies the agreement. This is because the legal world generally agrees that contracts that would expose consumers with practically zero legal access or knowledge to one-sided contracts providing one party unilateral control would be unconscionable.
Even if it were technically legal it should distress you.
reply