I’ll remember this whenever someone says you’ll run out of things to do when you retire.

There is nothing stopping a GPL project using MIT-licensed code except for lack of desire to do the work. They are one-way compatible.

It really depends. If the contract gives ownership of the work created to the purchaser, he has no rights to it whatsoever. Moreover, trying to do a clean room implementation of your own code is almost impossible without help. A permissive license would give the purchaser unlimited use of the product, including resale while still allowing the producer unlimited use, as well. If the contract is written correctly, the producer might even retain ownership, with the right to use different licenses, while the purchaser would have few or no restrictions.

I’ll throw my opinions in here.

If you’re publishing a standard or a reference application, a permissive license makes sense. What better way to guarantee compatibility than being able to use the reference code in your product. This is what happened with the TCP/IP stack, and it was used in its original form in Windows for years.

If you’re making something that you want to build a community around, something more akin to the GPL may be more aligned with your goals. The nice part is, you can include MIT licensed projects as part of your GPL project. This means there is nothing stopping you from building your standard with a MIT license while building your community-driven application using GPL, maximizing the reach of your standard while reducing the risk to your community.

Note that either option opens you to EEE (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish), the GPL option just takes an extra step (clean room implementation of a published standard).

I’m perfectly aware of how it works. My whole comment was a proposed way to manage it that doesn’t assume that everyone who uses outlook wants to use MS’s cloud service just because they also happen to use Outlook. I’m not sure how you missed that.

As for emphasis, “Press fucking backspace!” has a whole lot of it. I certainly would consider that, and not your hypothetical, as actively aggressive.

If you wish to talk about critical thinking, look at your own statements with respect to mine. Not once did I say cancel thenlink attachment, but this thing I didn’t say sure got you upset. Moreover, I wasn’t writing a formal specification. I’m sorry your assuming the worst and least likely meaning of what I thought was a pretty simple statement triggered you so badly.

Yeah, it sure does sound like it would be hard to have a notification if the attachment is going to fail due to size policies, and then have an option to use the link or cancel the attachment (and have you choose another way). It would also be unheard of for there to be a setting in that dialog to say to always do whatever action you take so it only inconveniences those who go with the default once.

User-hostile software is never a “you” problem. This applies to a number of FOSS products, as well.

Or my mom.

Me: Don’t just click OK without reading the message first.

Mom: Don’t click OK. Got it.

This is part of what helped the I love you virus to spread. Not too many idiots would open a file titled ILoveYou.txt.vbs, but even some smarter people will turn their brains off if they get a file titled ILoveYou.txt, possibly even me, except the first thing I do with a new computer is unhide file extensions.

I was going to say they didn’t used to require that, but that’s about 20 years ago, now…

Well, it works on more than 10 phone models. The criticisms in the post are valid, certainly, but that doesn’t help much if my device isn’t supported.

I’ve been pretty meh on GrapheneOS, haven’t actually used it, usually lean towards LineageOS, but the sandboxed Google Play feature sounds pretty interesting.

Those checks go to the larger YouTube channels, not people like you and me. Did you mean something different?

/s

Where I don’t disagree with anything you say here, someone who contributes to a project with a license like this should already be aware and have accepted that it may ultimately be taken out of their hands, and that’s fine if that’s what they want to do. In fact, I prefer it for some types of software (I can’t think of a better way to promote adoption of reference designs such as TCP/IP). That said, if the idea of working with a group and losing control or access to it is a problem for you, then by all means don’t do so and tell others of the risks.