I'm aware, I'm just trying to get OP to explain why they're lying, though. 6 em dashes over the course of this article is not a lot of em dashes. It's a bullshit claim and they know it, so what's the point of making it?
The one on the shelf is probably a Akari paper lantern. I have an orange one that I quite like. You used to be able to buy them from Design Within Reach or the MoMA Design Store, but I can't find them on their sites now but they're on the Noguchi site. [1] The hanging sphere one might be similar.
For those not aware of them, Design Within Reach has a lot of nice famous designed furniture and shelving, but pricey. They often have 15% off season sales though. Good place to shop if you're into the stuff seen in this blog post.
"Paper lantern" generally. Many inexpensive import shops carried them in the Before Times. Widely available now. They offer a soft ambient glow. Not ideal as a reading lamp (a bit too diffuse), but quite good for general room lighting.
That was my impression, as well, but I recently met SFC people and they assured me that the judge is taking the third party beneficiary doctrine very seriously, it‘s not off the table. Funnily, because Vizio objected to the tentative ruling, it has little meaning now.
The trial in August will handle the TPB stuff, as well. It will be streamed, btw.
> GPL itself does not forbid you from dynamically linking
GPL does not contain the words "dynamically linking". That‘s just a common interpretation as a shortcut.
In this case there are arguments for the program-plugin communication to be "intimate" and as such falling under "derivative work". But it‘s easy to take the other side, as well.
I put the actual clause under, but let's forget the actual legal definition for a moment.
GPL license in spirit is about assuring the user freedoms. No user freedoms are limited in this case. You are free to modify and redistribute the software as you like. OrcaSlicer pulls changes from Bambu without any issues.
I don't think trying to enforce the license in this way, even if possible (which again I think if it was it would happen with Linux drivers long before), is the right thing to do anyway. All it's doing is painting the GPL as a liability to any business for no benefit.
TIL, they're back supporting each other (scroll to the bottom):
Update 2026-01-26
To recap, in March 2021, the FSFE was forced to suspend our collaboration with the FSF to protect our work for software freedom from their apparent disregard for fostering a safe and welcoming community for software freedom advocates. At the time, we also hoped it would be an effective way of getting them to change into a more welcoming, appealing, and ultimately effective organization working to advance software freedom.
Meanwhile, the FSF has been changing: they have appointed Zoë Kooyman their executive director, they have adopted a code of ethics for their voting members, they have brought on new board members, they have recently elected a new president, Ian Kelling, a staffer first nominated to the board by their staff union in 2021, and they have had Eko K. A. Owen join the FSF board as their new union staff representative. They have changed from an organization synonymous with its founder to one led by staff committed to software freedom.
As a result, the FSFE has come to believe we can best advance software freedom, and foster a respectful, inclusive community around both of us, by working together with the FSF once more.
This is a style article about it, from 2019, long before ChatGPT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/14/style/em-dash-punctuation...
reply