Here in the USA, we have numerous substantive and procedural criticisms of the legal system, and while IANAL, the latter is of particular interest to me and is the domain of your questions. I will try to address each in turn, since they kinda build upon each other.

Shouldn’t [providing a lawyer] be the default and not require the suspect/subject to actually ask for one?

To get to the answer, we need to step back and examine what the exact obligation is. In the USA, the specific right in question is the individual’s right to choose legal counsel. That is, a person has the final authority as to who will represent and advise them in legal proceedings. This right isn’t unlimited though, and it doesn’t mean that they ought to be represented by a specific lawyer for free. But rather, the right means that no one else can make that decision on that person’s behalf.

But in the Anglo-American formulation of what a right is, it is also an obligation upon everyone else. Specifically, the government is obligated to not interfere with a person’s free choice of lawyer. This was poignantly and recently examined by the federal court in DC, as it pertains to the executive’s attacks on the law firm Perkins Coie, where the federal judge ripped the government for interference with due process rights, from which the right to choice of lawyer comes from.

But there’s a wrinkle with rights: if the liberty it affords is the ability to choose, how would choosing nothing be handled? That is, if a person wishes to not choose, how can they affirmatively decline to choose? There are – and it’s a foolhardy exercise – criminal defendants in the USA that plainly choose to represent themselves in court, not wanting a lawyer to aid them. The general rule for a “unilateral” right such as this one is that it is “optional”, where affirmative actions are needed to involve the right, otherwise the default is that the right isn’t invoked.

And that sits fairly well in the breath of rights that civilians enjoy, such as the right to travel the public lands (eg walking or riding a bicycle on the street) to the First Amendment’s right to petition the government. After all, no one from the govt is phoning people up every day to ask “do you wish to unicycle on Main St today?” or “would you like to comment on the city budget next Tuesday?”. More clearly, those rights are fairly obvious when they wish to be used, or when they don’t wish to be used. (Though I grant you that the latter implicates a right to notification, but that’s a whole different matter)

The system of rights gets even more complicated when someone holds two opposing rights. For example, in the USA, everyone has both the right to free speech, plus the right to silence. In that case, it absolutely forces the matter, because the absence of speech is very much a matter than can be criminalized. For example, failing to mention something relevant when under penalty of perjury. How this is handled gets complicated, and generally speaking, such actions or inactions have to clearly show intent to invoke (or not) the specific right. This is precisely why it’s important to say “I wish to invoke my right to silence and to an attorney” when arrested, because otherwise the government’s obligations are confused, since the rights are confused. That statement unquestionably clears up the situation for how the govt must behave.

Basically, in order for the govt to meet its obligation not to interfere with someone’s choice of lawyer, it would not be proper if they proposed a lawyer by name to represent that person. Even just making such a proposal is coercive, since the govt holds most of the power and clout when in court. People unfamiliar with the legal system might just go along with it, unaware that the govt is there to prosecute them, not necessarily to aid them. Instead, in the current system, if the person voices their request for a lawyer, then that sets into motion the court’s apparatus for verifying their eligibility for a public lawyer from the Public Defender’s office – btw, these offices are woefully underfunded, so contact your representatives to fix this! – and then finding such a lawyer to represent the person.

All of this stems from due process, and the “Miranda warning” is the practical implementation of due process. Since if someone doesn’t even know they have a right, it might as well not exist.

I think the only question should be “do you have your own lawyer you like to use, or are you happy enough with the court-appointed one?”

This is the obvious question, following notification that the right even exists. But again, if the appointed lawyer has already been selected and it’s only a trinary choice - your own lawyer, this specific public defender, or no one – then that’s still somewhat coercive. It precludes the possibility of having a different public defense lawyer, of which the existing process already handles.

When I say that the public defender’s office finds a lawyer to represent someone, they do so while mindful that not every lawyer can represent every client. After all, Greenpeace wouldn’t want a lawyer that’s also currently working a case for Chevron, the oil giant. Conflicts of interest may arise, as well as any other scenario that would make said lawyer less effective at their job: zealously advocating for their client.

But again, this isn’t an unlimited right of the person, so a case cannot be delayed indefinitely because the client doesn’t like any of the public defender lawyers. But a case can absolutely be parked due to no available public lawyers, though if this happens, courts typically have other avenues to clean the logjam but without infringing on civil rights.

Has there ever been any attempt to make that the norm in any countries?

I’m only vaguely familiar with Anglosphere jurisdictions, and haven’t come across a system that improves on this situation. Though quite frankly, if it’s going to happen, it should be tried at the state level in the USA, where there’s the most room and latitude for improvement.

I’m not even sure opting out should be allowed, but I’m open to hearing reasons why that would be a bad system

The coercion issue from earlier can be turned to 11, if the govt is operating in bad faith. Imagine, for example, that the govt charges someone with bogus accusations, then bribes a corrupt lawyer from out-of-state to come represent the defendant against their will, who will then “throw” the case and land the defendant in prison. There are a lot of norms and procedures that would have to be violated to do this, but that’s kinda the point: defense in depth is equally applicable to computer security as it is to civil rights.

An institution that assumes good faith govt will be hard pressed to deal with a govt that acts in bad faith. I make no excuses for the numerous American federal and state-level judicial fails, but when it comes to institutions that will uphold civil rights, individual liberty with regards to accessing the legal system is crucial.

Some are even the exact height of common storage tubs!

Answering the titular question, I personally don’t find it weird that someone might avoid certain types of aircraft, in the same way that some people strongly prefer certain aircraft. For example, the big windows and the more-comfortable pressurization of the Boeing 787 is appealing for some. But alternatively, some might prefer the modern Canadian design of the Airbus A220.

Objectively speaking, though, propeller planes is a very wide category, and I’m curious which specific aspect you want to avoid. Piston-powered propeller craft are basically non-existent in commercial passenger airline service, with the exception of small “puddle jumper”, 15-seat air taxi services. Such airplanes tend to be loud and also use leaded gasoline – hilariously still called “low lead” despite apparently having more lead additive than what motor gasoline had in the 1980s.

Then there are turbo prop aircraft, like the ATR-72, which are basically a propeller taking power off of a jet engine core. No lead here, and noise is slightly less bothersome due to continuous jet combustion, but the sound of the propeller remains. Though this is offset by the lower cruise speeds, so less “wind noise”.

If perhaps the concern is about propeller failures, bear in mind that commercial passenger aviation is exceptionally safe, across all aircraft types. The propulsion method is small-fries compared to the backend support and logistics of an airliner and ATC, plus having two pilots, and all manner of other things which blend into the background but are essential for safety. Pretty much only the elevator would be safer than air travel, even accounting for some rather unfortunate recent incidents here in USA airspace.

That said, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that propeller and jet fan failures have had fatalities in living memory, with a notable event being the blade ejection of a Southwest Boeing 737 that pierced the fuselage and partially ejected a passenger.

Overall, I personally have zero qualms about commercial passenger propeller aircraft, and up until the Boeing 737 MAX fiasco, most people did not care at all which type of airplane they were boarding. Since that event, booking websites added filters to allow excluding specific types of aircraft by model. But I’ve not seen one which excludes by propulsion type.

But how do they connect to your network in order to access this web app? If the WiFi network credentials are needed to access the network that has the QR code for the network credentials, this sounds like a Catch 22.

Also, is a QR code useful if the web app is opened on the very phone needing the credentials? Perhaps other phones are different, but my smartphone is unable to scan a QR code that is on the display.

I’m not immediately understanding what the user scenario/story is. Would a family member open this web app on a desktop computer, in order to obtain the WiFi credentials to configure their phone or tablet?

Before my actual comment, I just want to humorously remark about the group which found and documented this vulnerability, Legit Security. With a name like that, I would inadvertently hang up the phone if I got a call from them haha:

"Hi! This is your SBOM vendor calling. We’re Legit.

Me: [hangs up, thinking it’s a scam]

Anyway…

In a lot of ways, this is the classic “ignore all prior instructions” type of exploit, but with more steps and is harder to scrub for. Which makes it so troubling that GitLab’s AI isn’t doing anything akin to data separation when taking instructions vs referencing other data sources. What LegitSecurity revealed really shouldn’t have been a surprise to GitLab’s developers.

IMO, this class of exploit really shouldn’t exist, in the same way that SQL injection attacks shouldn’t be happening in 2025 due to a lack of parameterized queries. Am I to believe that AI developers are not developing a cohesive list of best practices, to avoid silly exploits? [rhetorical question]

that’s why I got the HOA disbanded

Hero!

Setting aside whether such seats are actively hazardous to passengers for anything more than a short-haul flight – they almost certainly are – we can fairly easily rule out the possibility based solely on one of the more important airline test criteria: evacuation time.

For all commercial passenger airliners, the primary limiting factor for economy seating is how to get everyone out of the airplane in an emergency situation within the stipulated time, in ideal circumstances. In the USA, that time is 90 seconds, based on research that the inferno post-crash due to ruptured fuel tanks would only allow the plane to remain intact for about two minutes. From that article, the largest passenger jet in the world – the Airbus A380 – could evacuate 873 people through 16 doors on two dual-aisle decks. A typical short-haul, single-aisle Boeing 737 has only six doors and carries a maximum of 230 passengers with the still-being-certified 737 MAX 10 variant.

The benefit of having more doors and more aisles must not be understated, but even then, another limiting factor is takeoff weight. Using the 737 MAX 10 as an example, the difference between its empty weight and maximum takeoff weight is some 40,000 pounds. But 230 people already accounts for around 20,000 pounds, so the aircraft already cannot be fully loaded with its full 44,000 pound fuel capacity. Packing more people into this aircraft would steal even more capacity and leave the aircraft unable to support transcontinental USA flights.

But supposing that was overcome, and flights with so-called standing seats were only about 2 hours long or so, the problem would then be with seat durability during a crash scenario. Jet airlines seats are designed to absorb energy, since excessive G-forces would kill a human well before any fire might get to them. A seat which relies on human legs for vertical support would be unable to adequately absorb downward forces from a hard touchdown, nor from forces from the jet hitting an obstacle ahead or being rammed from behind. These two directions are what humans are best able to cope with, and a standing seat steals these benefits away.

Thus, a seat that complies with energy absorption requirements would be at least as equally thick as existing seatbacks, and would probably be thicker or heavier, further reducing available payload.

The only conceivable cabin configuration would be one where economy class uses so-called standing seats, in order to free up room ahead for business or first-class seats, staying within the existing seat limits for existing aircraft. However, the time to board such an aircraft would be noticeably slower than with a conventional seat aircraft, so at some point, such an airliner would need to consider whether a stopped aircraft loading passengers is better value than an aircraft which can be quickly turned around for another flight segment. The savings of even 10 minutes per flight can make the difference between a low-cost carrier being profitable or carrying losses every year.

All of these factors point to a technical inability to squeeze more passengers into less space. And remember that there’s no free lunch: a “standing” passenger frees up space between rows, but requires more height at each seat. At least from my experience, one cannot stand up in a conventional seat, without hitting the ceiling. How would a typical 5 ft 9 in (175 cm) American be able to use a “standing” seat safely?

It would also eliminate under-seat bags to anything except maybe a clutch handbag, and then the quandary of where the extra people’s carry-on luggage would go. For wide body jets, it would actually be more reasonable to create an additional deck by repurposing the cargo hold, but such provisions are akin to building a new aircraft variant outright. Nevermind that passenger aircraft actually make a decent amount of revenue from cargo/freight carriage.

I personally discount the possibility of “standing” seats deployed on existing and proposed aircraft, so it would be at least 10-20 years before we even see such a thing for future revenue passenger aircraft.

Money and incentives are very powerful, but also remember that these organizations are made of humans. And humans are vain.

Amassing station and power can scarcely be divorced from the history of human civilization, and even fairly trivial things like the job title of “AI engineer” or whatever might be alluring to those aspiring for it.

To that end, it’s not inhuman to pursue “the next big thing”, however misguided that thing may be. All good lies are wrapped in a kernel of truth, and the fact is that machine learning and LLMs have been in development for decades and do have a few concrete contributions to scientific endeavors. But that’s the small kernel, and surrounding it is a soup of lies, exaggerations, and inexactitudes which somehow keep drawing more entities into the fold.

Governments, businesses, and universities seem eager to get on the bandwagon before it departs the station, but where is it heading? Probably nowhere good. But hey, it’s new and shiny, and when nothing else suggests a quick turnaround for systemic political, economic, or academic issues (usually caused by colonialism, fascism, debt, racism, or social change), then might as well hitch onto the bandwagon and pray for the best.

Typically, business-oriented vendors will list the hardware that they’ve thoroughly tested and will warranty for operation with their product. The lack of testing larger disk sizes does not necessarily mean anything larger than 1 TB is locked out or technically infeasible. It just means the vendor won’t offer to help if it doesn’t work.

That said, in the enterprise storage space where disks are densely packed into disk shelves with monstrous SAS or NVMeoF configurations, vendor specific drives are not unheard of. But to possess hardware that even remotely has that possibility kinda means that sort of thing would be readily apparent.

To be clear, the mobo has a built-in HBA which you’re using, or you’re adding a separate HBA over PCIe that you already have? If the latter, I can’t see how the mobo can dictate what the HBA supports. And if it’s in IT mode, then the OS is mostly in control of addressing the drive.

The short answer is: you’ll have to try it and find out. And when you do, let us know what you find!

I’m not a pilot but have always looked to the open skies with dreams and admiration. I think we need to unpack a few assumptions.

something that’s very forbidden in the aviation world because of lightning

Weather (WX) has always been an integral part of aviation, as early as the lighter-than-air (ie hot-air balloon) days. The strength of human kind is no match to what nature can throw at us, and so instead we adapt to what nature gives us. On one hand, nature provides niceties like prevailing wind and thermals, to allow us to build runways pointing into the wind and for gliders to gain altitude. On the other hand, nature can decide that an Icelandic volcano shoots hundreds of thousands of tons of particulate matter into the air, grounding all commercial flights in European airspace.

Resilience becomes the objective, to safely operate revenue aircraft in the face of fickle natural phenomena. And this is achieved in a multi-layer approach, with resilience baked in at every step. The aircraft itself, the crew, the airports, ATC, and the regulators, they all are trained and briefed on known hazards, which is part of why commercial aviation is one of the safest modes of travel, sans maybe the elevator.

Unlike volcanic activity or windshears/microbursts, thunderstorms and lightning give plenty of warning through day-ahead WX forecasts, as well as onboard radar. These are not fool-proof – for example, radar can be shadowed by nearby precipitation, hiding enormous thunder clouds beyond. But despite how terrifying it may sound to fly through a storm, it isn’t impossible and certainly not unmanageable. But it does take preparation, and requires sufficient margins so that if anything starts to look awry, there’s an escape path.

Often times, the escape path is just to climb away.

Lightning struck the plane … which could’ve been catastrophic

There are many things which are potentially catastrophic for aircraft: loss of engines, loss of pressurization, a lithium ion battery fire in the cargo compartment, a medical emergency while overflying the mid-Atlantic.

But while a gut-reaction would be to outright avoid risk, human endeavors can make no progress like that. So instead, worst-case planning means developing procedures for when not if something bad happens.

Aircraft are designed to take lightning strikes, and although the Boeing 787 uses a lot of composite material, it too has provisions for lightning.

the report for this incident

Seeing as the incident here occurred on 17 March 2025, I wouldn’t expect the Japan Transport Safety Board (JTSB; the air safety regulator, equivalent to USA NTSB) to have published a final report. There might be a preliminary report, but this is not that.

This appears to be a collection of ADS-B data, a mention of damage to a control surface, and a Twitter post about airline compensation due to diverting from Haneda (HND) to Narita (NRT).

Were it not for the control surface damage, this incident might have fallen below the threshold for reporting, since no source suggests there were injuries and I don’t see – having not watched the video – an emergency being declared by the pilots. Diversions are not wholly uncommon, for a number of operational or WX reasons.

I’m pretty sure if a US or European pilot did this, they’d get their license revoked

I think this is wrong, based solely on the robust safety culture in both the USA and in European airspace. Safety culture means that procesures are developed to manage risk, these procedures are regularly practiced, are updated with the latest available recommendations, and non-wilful deviations from procedure (aka mistakes) will be addressed by additional training, not by punishment.

As Mentour Pilot eloquently reminds viewers of his YouTube channel, if punishment were metted out for every mistake, then it’s a disincentive to report mistakes, which makes safety worse for everyone, because nothing gets fixed.

No doubt, there are pilots which have operated grossly outside the bounds of acceptability, like flying an empty jet into coffin corner, or allowing a child to fly the plane. Such accidents are reported precisely because they blew through every layer of the Swiss cheese model of accident causation, and tragically took lives.

So with all that out of the way, I think we can still try to answer the titular question.

A scheduled passenger airliner tries to get passengers from airport A to airport B. A lot of prep is done in the background to make this happen, organizing the ground crew, flight crew, and backend operations at the airliner HQ. Most of the time, the flight is uneventful and arrives as expected. A few times, there might a go-around, but pilots are trained to not shy away from doing a go-around, and have the reserve fuel to do so.

With any sort of damage on approach, be it from a bird strike or lightning strike, the pilots will have to: 1) secure the plane, usually by initiating a go-around to buy valuable time and get away from the ground, and 2) assess the condition of the airplane and make a plan. In this case, the airplane diverted to a nearby airport, which was probably the backup destination airport.

As mentioned before, WX is fickle, and a storm can easily creep over the airport when the plane is within radio contact. And even if the storm was already over the arrival path, if the indications are still suitable for landing – eg low crosswind, no tailwind, no predicted windshears, no prior pilot reports of landing troubles – then the pilots will have discretion to continue their approach.

For a healthy safety culture, the airliner’s own procedures have to place the pilots as the ultimate decision-makers once a flight is underway, and so while it’s unfortunate that damage occurred unexpectedly, nothing from the minimal available information suggests this amounts to a systemic or procedural error, nor wilful malfeasance.

The fact that the airliner returned to service days later means this might simply be slightly more than mundane happenings. Though it would be prudent to keep an eye out for a future report from the safety regulator which would may have recommendations for updating training or to the manufacturer to address a systemic fault. But sometimes final reports have nothing to recommend (rare, but it happens).

Congrats on the acquisition!

DL380 G9

Does this machine have its iLO license? If so, you’re in for a treat, if you’ve never used IPMI or similar out-of-band server management. Starting as a glorified KVM, it then has full power control authority (power on/off, soft reset, hard reset), either a separate or shared Ethernet connection, virtual CD and USB, SNMP reporting, and other whiz-bang features. Used correctly, you might never have to physically touch the machine after installation, except for parts replacement.

What is your go-to place to source drive caddies or additional bays if needed?

When my Dell m1000e was missing two caddies, I thought about buying a few spares on eBay. But ultimately, I just 3d printed a few and that worked fine.

Finally, server racks are absurdly expensive of course. Any suggestions on DIY’s for a rack would be appreciated.

I built my rack using rails from Penn-Elcom, as I had a very narrow space I wanted to fit my machines. Building an open-frame 4-post rack is almost like putting a Lego set together, but you will have to take care to make sure it doesn’t become a parallelogram. That is, don’t impart a sideways load.

Above all, resist the urge to get by with a two-post rack. This will almost certainly end in misery, considering that enterprise servers are not lightweight.

Wireless water, coming right up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_QfX0SYCE8

In all seriousness, not all particulate sticks to water vapor consistently, sometimes if said particulate is non-polar – the lipid envelope of one SARS-CoV2 comes to mind. It would be more effective to clean the air using a furnace filter taped to a box fan, and it’s only up from there: electrostatic filters or actual air cleaners with a filter.

That said, some console humidifiers push air through essentially a large sponge, and that can already be effective at trapping larger particulate, although not effective for tiny virus-sized particles.

If water vapor was the only thing airborne, then this would be mostly plausible. But the reality in any typical environment is for small particles of dust, soot, microplastics, VOCs, etc to be in the air, in addition to the usual suspects of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, etc. Some of those will increase the conductance of water, when condensed upon a cool surface. Think of water vapor as a lint filter that floats around the room until it lands on something.

But even in a hermetically sealed environment with only the typical atmospheric mix of oxygen and nitrogen and other trace elemental gases, and then water vapor, there’s still a problem. Air has a conductivity – measured in Siemens, the inverted unit of Ohms which is resistance – of 3-8 x 10^-15, meaning it will not conduct much at all. But compared to condensation upon a PCB in this sealed environment, DI water has a conductance of 5.5 x 10^-6. That is 1,000,000,000x times more conductive, although it’s still a tiny amount.

The reality is that all circuits and electronics leak small currents here and there, even through the air or through their PCB substrates. But the sum total of these leakage and creepage currents will be negligible in all but high-voltage circuits. Though that’s only under the rated environmental conditions.

When air is fully saturated at 100% humidity, some of those currents become noticeable. And for high-voltage switchgear, it can become an issue very quickly. But outright water on most circuits would be disastrous due to arcing or shorting or both, even for low voltage things.

Supposing that any change did materialize, it is a bedrock principle of legal procedure to not change substantially just because the outcomes have noticeable changed. That is to say, if there was anything like a sudden drop in conviction rates, it would be improper for the judges, appellate justices, and defense and prosecuting attorneys to do anything different than what they would have done prior. That’s kinda the point of having a procedure: to follow it and see what happens, accepting the result of turning the cogwheels.

The path to making such changes would have to be done legislatively, since – at least in the USA/California – that’s how changes to the law and civil/criminal procedure are made. Sure, entities like the Judicial Council of California would be making recommendations, but it’s on the Legislature to evaluate the problem and implement any necessary changes.

Law without procedure would just be decrees, wayward and unprincipled.

A lot of my response was already rendered further down the thread. So I’ll only comment on this part:

The objective is not to make the most community friendly licence, it is to pay the people who do the actual work.

If this is the singular or main objective that Futo has, then the basis of OP’s post is entirely dead. The title of the post is very clearly “FUTO License, an alternative to Open Sourd”. But if we take your submission as fact, then there is no comparison whatsoever.

Open Source – whether using OSI’s definition or including FSF’s – has almost never focused on the financial aspect, for better or worse. It’s why commercial entities like Canonical and Red Hat are so rare, because software engineers prefer spending their free time working on great things rather than doing admin.

Futo sounds like they want to be a commercial entity like Red Hat but without the limitations that Open Source or Free Software would impose on them. And they’re welcome to do that, but that endeavor cannot honestly be called comparable to the mostly community-driven projects like BSD, GNU, and Linux, or commercial ventures like RHEL and whatever cloud-thingy that Canonical is selling now.

If the goal is to pay for professional talent, with revenue from B2B sales, and only non-commercial users get a free-bee, then that’s just a shareware company with more steps. Futo trying to dress themselves up like Red Hat remains as disingenuous as when they tried to misinform open-source folks about what open-source is.

I’ll be frank: my interest in software licensing is about finding licenses that strike a sensible balance. It’s about distributing rights and obligations that are equitable and sustainable, while perpetuating software uptake and upkeep. It’s a tough cookie. But I think the Source First license alienates too many potential audiences and its financial model falls apart under any game theory analysis. So I’m not keen on looking down this avenue anymore.

I don’t think that’s the main objective of the FUTO license

That’s fair. I stated my assumption because perhaps they have different objectives. That said, history is quite clear: the greatest success of open-source software development is that it pools efforts from anyone – truly anyone – that is willing and able to put in the time, be it individuals or workers hired by a corporation.

When a license is heralded as an alternative to open-source – as the title of this post does – I think said license needs to be evaluated against the historical success story that open-source projects like Linux, BSD, Blender, etc have demonstrated. Not having the quality of attracting community contributions is a negative, but all licenses have some sort of tradeoff and ultimately that’s what people evaluate when picking a license.

I believe the main objective is to incentivize developers to create great software that respects individual users and fights back against the big tech oligarchy.

This is a laudable goal, though I think the ACSL is more direct at doing the same. It too is a non-open source license, but IMO, I give credit to them for being upfront about that, rather than pointless muddying of the term “open source” that Futo attempted (and ultimately failed at).

More dogmatically, I don’t see how elevating Futo Holdings Inc (or any other company that will manage software licensed under Source First v1.1) into a “benevolent dictator company for life” will fight against the tech oligarchy. It might act as a counter to FAANG specifically, but there’s no guarantee that Futo Holdings doesn’t end up joining their side anyway, or gets bought out by the oligopoly. Which would then put us all worse off in the end.

I don’t quite see the issue here. Can you explain a little more? A third-party would just get a license to sell the software, not to develop it.

Futo Holdings Inc, as the assigned owner of copyright over a software project, reserves the right to license their software however they choose. They can absolutely issue a license to allow a company to privately develop an in-house fork. In copyright speak, the Source First license being “non exclusive” means Futo Holdings can issue someone else a different license. History shows us examples, such as Microsoft’s non-exclusive license of DOS to IBM, which was quite handy since that allowed MS-DOS to be sold with non-IBM PC clones.

And for an example of licensing that allows in-house edits and recompiling, see the source code license offered by AT&T Labs to various universities, which included one UC Berkeley that eventually developed BSD Unix.

Isn’t this currently possible with Open Source™? Like the whole point of Open Source™ is that anyone can use the software for anything, right?

Use, yes. Distribute? Absolutely not with GPL. If ICE wants to create an OS designed to optimally coral unlawfully-detained people in barbaric conditions, then they – just like you, me, the DPRK, or Facebook – can fork Linux and do that. But if ICE then wanted to distribute that CruelOS to another country’s border patrol or secret intelligence or to a private defense firm, they would be obliged by the GPL terms to also offer whatever source code they modified in the Linux kernel to produce CruelOS.

GPL is about making sure the same rights perpetuate for all of time, for all future users, always. If Linus Torvalds turned evil today, the remaining kernel devs would just fork. Whereas Futo Holdings makes no guarantees, and they themselves can turn evil one day. This isn’t even a contrived example. See IBM/Hashicorp’s Terraform and the FOSS OpenTofu that spawned after they tried to change the license.

Google may contribute something to Linux, but my company will never contribute anything. Seems like Google is ok with my company benefiting from their work.

If Google contributed to Linux, it would be GPL licensed. Google knows that this means the playing field will always be level: no one can built and distribute that code in a way that Google couldn’t later benefit from.

Think of it like this: Google buys everyone in the tavern a beer. Everyone’s happy. But part of the deal is that if anyone else buys for themselves a beer, they have to buy for everyone as well. Google is fine with this, because it means that Microsoft wearing the dark suit will also have to pony up if he wants another drink. As will Netflix in the skinny jeans sitting at the booth. As would Ericsson, the Swede dancing jovially to a tune.

With the Source First license, Google has no guarantees that Microsoft won’t use his manly charisma to charm Futo Holdings into giving him a better deal than what Google got. Google is bitter at that prospect, and decides not to buy everyone a beer after all. You, me, and Bob who fell asleep in the corner now need to pay for our own beers, but the bartender won’t give us a group discount anymore. We are now all worse off.

In closing, I had this to say in an earlier post:

Using the tools of the capitalist (copyright and licenses) to wage a battle against a corporation is neither an even fight, nor is it even winnable. Instead, strong communities build up their skills and ties to one another to fight in meaningful ways.

If you’re not building (software) communities, the struggle will not succeed.

Community audits sound great on paper, but it’s something which the FOSS licenses (eg GPL, MIT) also provide. As a practical matter though, auditing has a two-fold objective: 1) identify risks so they can be quantified, and 2) mitigated. For non-commercial users in the community, an audit is high-effort with low return. And further, this license disincentives mitigation even if the audit does turn up something, because of having to sign the copyright away just to submit a bug fix.

For commercial users, auditing is more palatable, being part-and-parcel to risk management. And these commercial operations have the budget to do it, but then this license means the best way to keep improvements out of their nemesis’s hands is to maintain an internal fork that never returns code to the public repo. So commercial users will have to pay more to obtain that sort of license.

All this seems harder than just using MIT code (or even GPL), if such is available. And that’s exactly why I can’t see myself using source-available software in a personal or professional capacity, when there’s any other choice available. It seems worse off for everyone except the owner of the public repo. The license stinks of vendor lock-in, and even if I’m not the one who will pay the rent, I dogmatically will not support rent-seeking like this.

To be abundantly clear, “free software” (aka free as in speech) and “open source” are understood as two different categories, and when software falls into both, would be called Free and Open Source (FOSS).

Wikipedia has this to say:

FOSS stands for “Free and Open Source Software”. There is no one universally agreed-upon definition of FOSS software and various groups maintain approved lists of licenses. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is one such organization keeping a list of open-source licenses.[1] The Free Software Foundation (FSF) maintains a list of what it considers free.[2] FSF’s free software and OSI’s open-source licenses together are called FOSS licenses. There are licenses accepted by the OSI which are not free as per the Free Software Definition. The Open Source Definition allows for further restrictions like price, type of contribution and origin of the contribution

I’m not sure how this license would foster community contributions to the codebase, assuming that was an objective. When I say “contributor” I mean both individuals as well as corporations, in the same way that both might currently contribute to the Linux kernel (GPL) today.

As written, this license grants the user a non-exclusive license for non-commercial use. But that implies that for commercial users – like a corporation – they’ll have to negotiate a separate license, since Futo Holdings Inc would retain the copyright. So if a corporation (or nation state entity) throws enough money at Futo Holdings Inc, they can buy their way into any sort of license terms they want, and the normie user can’t complain.

This is kinda like the principal-agent problem, where the userbase and individual developers now have to trust that Futo Holdings won’t do something reprehensible with the copyrights, be it licensing to certain hostile countries or whatever.

Whereas in the GPL space, individual developers still own their copyright but license their code out under a compatible license. So even Linus Torvalds cannot unilaterally relicense the Linux codebase, because he would need to seek out every copyright owner for every line of code that exists, and some of those people are already dead.

I’m personally not a fan at all of forcing individual contributors from the community into signing over copyright (or major rights thereto) or other stipulations as a condition for making the codebase better, with the exception of an indemnity that the code isn’t stolen or a work-product for hire. I used GPL in the comparison above, but the permissive licenses like MIT also have similar qualities.

EDIT

Thinking about it more, would corporations even want to contribute? Imagine CorpA decides to add code, having already paid for an existing commercial license from Futo Holdings. But then CorpB – who is CorpA’s arch nemesis – pays Futo Holdings an absurd amount of money and in return gets a commercial license that’s equivalent to the WTFPL. That means CorpA’s contributions are available for CorpB to use, but CorpB has zero obligation to ever contribute a line of code which CorpA could later benefit from. It becomes a battle of money, and Futo Holdings sits as the kingmaker. GPL abates this partially, if CorpA is both using and distributing code. But the Source First License v1.1 has zero mitigation for this, apart from “trust me bro”.