The change in EULA was the hint; I have not; and will not be buying any Switch 2 games, consoles or related merchandise. Nor will I be paying any further into my Switch beyond NSO as I have or buying any games for the Switch that are not explicitly on a physical cart.

I don't buy games often anyways and would rather support Pocketpair and Palworld and Valve. So that's where my discretionary spend and gift requests will go henceforth.

In general Nintendo is having it's villainous arc; and I don't believe they will survive it...given that they've run out or demoted their creatives and visionaries to workers. Nintendo is dead; what's left is a greedy and soulless shell that behaves more like a gang or mafia. Given their History; that doesn't surprise me.

This seems like a potentially clever defense against scrapers...which probably spoof the referrer field to be the base domain anyways.

I also think it's important to point out separately that this software can be modified down into an easy to use software package that allows one to input relevant taxable financial data into it; and then when it comes time to file your taxes; you print out a long report; take it to your tax professional, who is now easily able to read that report, and use the information to appropriately file taxes.

Heck; that report might even make it drop dead simple to fill out your own tax forms; should you decide that's what you'd like to do; and you could feed the software the relevant tax forms in and it would fill them out to the best of it's ability using the data provided to it.

I don't see the problem. This can be forked, enhanced, updated, and modified and that version released with an appropriate copyleft license.

Sure; some companies will do the same with utterly horrific copyright licenses. That's fine; as it's in the public domain. We just need some group to work to provide an appropriate copyleft licensed version.

Ideally we should be getting on this fast; but we all know FOSS work isn't going to be fast if it's done by volunteers. Some funds might need raising.

In essence; CC0 is an ultimate copyleft license; as it does not even preclude the use of copyrighting improvements on variant works.

It doesn't have to be sinister to be wrong, or, to violate the ethos standards that the FOSS community at large is supposed to stand for.

When it's explained simply; it seems to make more sense to emotive thinking.

An example:

"[Manufacturer] is [telling you that/acting like] you cannot choose apps outside of their [store/collection/catalog]; even if you, as an adult, would trust that app or need it to save your own sanity, health or life."

When I tell an Apple user that; they suck their teeth and try to make [noises/excuses] but in the end they do relent and admit that does suck. Not only can they not refute it logically, they cannot refute it emotionally.

When I show them how I've riced out the experience of my Android Smartphone and how I can use my phone rapidly without encumbrance because I have everything at my fingertips in a workflow that comes native to me....they get jealous!

Sadly where I lose them, is where I tell them all the work I put in to achieve it. I have to break the news to them that going to the store and buying a phone with freedoms just like mine isn't possible. Perhaps that's where we need to attack these things.

Basically; we need to make freedom look sexy. There will invariably be things we can do with our freed devices and software systems that they cannot hope to achieve. We have to endeavor to make that difference as pronounced and noticeable as possible. When we do; that's when FLOSS communities swell and grow. When Linux got good at gaming with Proton; the numbers swelled. Linux became "sexy" because it could game. If we give users something they can have over their peers who don't seek freedom respecting software, they will flock to it in droves...and the companies will be driven into the poorhouse for failing to meet the user demands.

Linux must achieve 100% compatibility. Otherwise the doubters will not shut up.

I pay nothing for running SearXNG locally on my machine.

Unpaid internships really do need to be abolished.

I don't agree with the assessment of the OP or the original blog article. Grayjay is Open Source software.

It is, however, NOT FREE SOFTWARE and I do know that organizations like the FSF and OSI do not consider it to be free.

The free status of this software was never misrepresented by Louis Rossman. He blatantly explains that there is a cost to this software and that the license is how he plans to enforce his means of collecting this fee on the honor system.

He also outlines how he cannot; and will not...stop anyone from forking this software and basically removing the payment bits of the code and just redistributing it under a different name. I strongly recommend someone does that...and maybe license that work under a much more unrestrictive free license that FLOSS-Only users might find more palatable.

I get that nobody wants or needs to trust Louis to keep his word. He's gotta run a business at some point...and distributing this software this way on the honor system might not pan out quite the same way he hopes it will. I do hope that at the point where he and his compatriots choose to stop maintaining the application; that they do immediately retcon this restrictive license; and re-release it under a new, free, and unrestrictive Open Source Software license.

Gross.

If you live in the USA; Go raise a fuss and holler and make sure that your local House Representative knows that this shit is absolutely facist and unacceptable.

AI art is factually not art theft. It is creation of art in the same rough and inexact way that we humans do it; except computers and AIs do not run on meat-based hardware that has an extraordinary number of features and demands that are hardwired to ensure survival of the meat-based hardware. It doesn't have our limitations; so it can create similar works in various styles very quickly.

Copyright on the other hand is, an entirely different and, a very sticky subject. By default, "All Rights Are Reserved" is something that usually is protected by these laws. These laws however, are not grounded in modern times. They are grounded in the past; before the information age truly began it's upswing.

Fair use generally encompasses all usage of information that is one or more of the following:

• Educational; so long as it is taught as a part of a recognized class and within curriculum.
• Informational; so long as it is being distributed to inform the public about valid, reasonable public interests. This is far broader than some would like; but it is legal.
• Transformative; so long as the content is being modified in a substantial enough manner that it is an entirely new work that is not easily confused for the original. This too, is far broader than some would like; but it still is legal.
• Narrative or Commentary purposes; so long as you're not copying a significant amount of the whole content and passing it off as your own. Short clips with narration and lots of commentary interwoven between them is typically protected. Copyright is not intended to be used to silence free speech. This also tends to include satire; as long as it doesn't tread into defamation territory.
• Reasonable, 'Non-Profit Seeking or Motivated' Personal Use; People are generally allowed to share things amongst themselves and their friends and other acquaintances. Reasonable backup copies, loaning of copies, and even reproduction and presentation of things are generally considered fair use.

In most cases AI art is at least somewhat Transformative. It may be too complex for us to explain it simply; but the AI is basically a virtual brain that can, without error or certain human faults, ingest image information and make decisions based on input given to it in order to give a desired output.

Arguably; if I have license or right to view artwork; or this right is no longer reserved, but is granted to the public through the use of the World Wide Web...then the AI also has those rights. Yes. The AI has license to view, and learn from your artwork. It just so happens to be a little more efficient at learning and remembering than humans can be at times.

This does not stop you from banning AIs from viewing all of your future works. Communicating that fact with all who interact with your works is probably going to make you a pretty unpopular person. However; rightsholders do not hold or reserve the right to revoke rights that they have previously given. Once that genie is out of the bottle; it's out...unless you've got firm enough contract proof to show that someone agreed to otherwise handle the management of rights.

In some cases; that proof exists. Good luck in court. In most cases however; that proof does not exist in a manner that is solid enough to please the court. A lot of the time; we tend to exchange, transfer and reserve rights ephemerally...that is in a manner that is not strictly always 100% recognized by the law.

Gee; Perhaps we should change that; and encourage the reasonable adaptation and growth of Copyright to fairly address the challenges of the information age.