The analogy is that you buy a car (because if it breaks, the car and your entertainment stuff, you will buy a new one to replace it, you will also carry all maintenance) but suddenly you can't drive backwards anymore because the manufacturer decided retroactively that you should pay extra for that (possibly in a subscription).
I would say it is your good right then to make your car drive backwards regardless of what it may take.
The load distributes across more shoulders automatically.
If you only host a server for yourself and 10 friends it costs next to nothing, if you have a big operation it can get just as expensive, it depends on what you are willing to do.
With centralized systems there is no choice but for the one centralized host to host everything.
Funny you would think that using the fediverse. Discord has exactly the same problems Reddit and Twitter had where at any moment someone for whatever reason could alter the deal significantly.
Your point is that copyright law is easier to enforce than trademark law? I doubt it. I personally don't care that the lawyers you will definitely need for this and for long do exactly.
If you take over a project of this scale you need to make this your job and thus get paid. There's a good reason Louis hasn't just pushed this out as his hobby project but hired developers.
If you can't it won't happen. My point is more: If it was possible to take over, would it really happen? Extremely unlikely.
Do you not see the contradiction in this statement? Where do you find the line of what is stealing and “working as intented”?
If you redistribute someone else's open source code as open source but change nothing why would I get it from you and not the original developer? There is no incentive and no reward to "steal".
If you make enough changes to create additional value I might and then it is "working as intended"
Exactly and the model of make changes and remove trademark has worked very well for them. Why not introduce arbitrary other limitations when they are clearly not neccessary?
The developer can yank the software from under you, he can change the monetisation model, or he can drop support for the software. With Free or Open Source software you could just take over the responsibility of maintainership or outsource it some other developer you can trust instead.
Sure, good point but in the real world this will never happen.
If Mozilla suddenly decides to implode you won't just casually take over Firefox or hire another maintainer to develop it for you.
In theory this sounds nice but for any software that is of any real complexity (and thus use) it is pretty much irrelevant.
Unfortunately everything AI does is kind of shitty. Sure you might have a query for which the chosen AI works well but you might as well not.
It you accept that it sometimes just doesn't work at all sure AI is your revolution. Unfortunately there are not too many use cases where this is helpful.
Might be true for you but most people do have a concept of true and false and don't just dream up stuff to say.
An algorithm suggesting things you might like doesn't have to be AI. There are simple metrics to achieve that (e.g. things other people who liked this also liked)
Or are we calling every algorithm AI now?
That's not even true, I run my own mailserver for private and a business and it works like expected.