thayne

I also notice it doesn't say anything about their heirs. I wonder if there is a meaningful argument that copyright extending beyond the life of the original author is unconstitutional.

I've seen several projects like this, where there is a flurry of activity for a few days, maybe a couple of weeks, and then it is abondoned and doesn't see any more updates. Maybe they got bored of it, maybe the code wasn't actually maintanable (which can easily happen with vibed code), maybe they were just trying to get attention and didn't actually care about the project.

The limits in the license mean it isn't open source.

> IPv6 is... inherently globally accessible.

No, it's not. If you really want a NAT there is no reason you can't use a NAT with ipv6. In fact, it can work even better because instead of using a random port for the translation, you can use a random ip address for each connection.

My ISP is only a few years old, but they don't support IPv6 at all. And when I complain about it to support, their response is basically "we don't see the point".

That's actually one indication of how quality has gone down. When I was a kid, I remember a lot of big ticket items would have "lifetime" warranties or 20 year warranties, but these days it's hard to find anything with a warranty of more than a couple years, unless you buy separate "supplementary" warranty, which is really more of insurance than a warranty.

It isn't a perfect analogy, but I think the weights of a model are closer to a compiled executable than source code.

> I don't recall their being a huge backlash to elasticsearch ELv2.

That's not the way I remember it...

> HashiCorp has the same business model

And Hashicorp's software is no longer open source, after they changed the license.

How about a joint effort by multiple governments, done fully in the open, with all results, including training data and methodology fully open source?

> Open source doesn't mean "anyone can use the source code commercially".

Yes it does. It might have requirements that you release the code for any changes you make to it or link with it. But no OSI (or FSF) approved license prohibits you from using it commercially.

Even before Let's Encrypt was a thing, that is how most DV (Domain Validated) certs were issued. It was just a more manual, more expensive process to do it. GP's point is since the system depends completely on trusing the DNS chain anyway, why not have the registrar [sic. it should actually probably be the registry] act as the CA as well and cut out the middleman, and the need to verify the domain from multiple paths to prevent MitM.

In Physics, if a theory doesn't describe reality, the theory is incomplete. Of course all theories are ultimately incomplete, the goal is to find theories that match reality better than the ones before.

CRLs were a great (ok, maybe just ok) design in the early days when the internet was small and the number of CAs and revoked certificates was small. But it was never going to be scalable. And it has the really big problem of needing to distribute these lists of revocations. OCSP has a different set of tradeoffs.