You've given the argument from fallacy, dismissing an argument without any reference to its content, but only to its conclusion. The existence of bad arguments for a proposition doesn't condemn all other arguments for the same.

The question is whether any particular argument's strong or weak. That's a matter of evidence and reasoning.

Art versus engineering is a very dangerous generalization of the law. There is a creativity requirement for copyrightability, but it's an explicitly low bar. Search query "minimal degree of creativity".

The Supreme Court decision in Oracle v Google skipped over copyrightability and addressed fair use. Fair use is a legal defense, applying only in response to finding infringement, which can only be found if material's copyrightable. So the way the Supreme Court made its decision was weird, but it wasn't about the creativity requirement.

npm got around to `@{author}/{package}` and `@{org}/{package}` beyond just global `{package}`, albeit midstream, rather than very early on. The jargon is "scoped packages". I've seen more adoption recently, also with scopes for particular projects, like https://www.npmjs.com/package/@babel/core

Refuted?

I shell out to POSIX `date` on Linux and I believe also on Windows:

    - trigger: ";tod"
      replace: "{{mydate}}"
      vars:
      - name: mydate
        type: shell
        params:
          cmd: date --iso-8601

Court Listener has the opinion here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.vaed.53...

I encourage you to read the opinion.

There was nothing to nail down here. The Copyright Office rejected the registration. The Review Board affirmed. The trial court affirmed. Three appeals court judges affirmed. No dissenting opinion.

I have seen `git blame` used to blame specific people. I've seen it work. Some of those people deserved some blame.

The manpage explains what the command does. How and why it's used is up to the user.

The current Reuters headline is "US appeals court rejects copyrights for AI-generated art lacking 'human' creator". That's still kind of clickbaity, but far more accurate and correct than the link I see here on HN.

This whole case has been a dumb waste of time for anyone but scurrilous headline writers.

The plaintiff insisted on filling out the copyright app with their "creation" in the author field. Every legal opinion since has had to start assuming that's true, making "no copyright for you" legally obvious. The plaintiff apparently tried to walk that back on appeal, to argue he authored the work using the software. There's a paragraph right near the beginning where the court points out it simply doesn't consider that argument, since it wasn't brought up to the Copyright Office, back when the plaintiff was insisting on the opposite.

Кнопки (k-nope-key) is Russian for "buttons". Maybe related.

I would love to see HN adopt a policy of replacing links to news pieces about court opinions that don't link them with links to better news pieces that do.

> In thinking about our own law, most people would acknowledge the existence of literary and rhetorical features but these are generally considered irrelevant to the true work of law, and in many cases are judged to conflict with that work.

I found this unsupported assertion surprising.

I haven't watched many legal dramas, but my secondhand impression of both TV and film is that they tend to make the US legal system seem a lot more dramatic, and a lot less procedural, than it really is.

Professors and visiting lawyers explicitly acknowledge narrative building as a skill throughout my time in law school.

No well-known permissive open software license includes any promise to do future development, much less to make it available under the same license terms. A key draw of permissive licensing is that anyone can fork and put new work under new and different terms.

Who would promise perpetual maintenance for nothing? What organization would sign up to be the only one that can't change terms for improvements?

I don't think "social contract" makes sense here. There's no sovereign power involved. In the sense used, "social contract" essentially means "not in the contract"---as in not in the terms. It's a back door for saying things that were never put down ought to be treated like they were in the license file, just because one side really wants them and doesn't want to DIY or pay for them.

If there are disappointed expectations, that's another thing. But being even very disappointed, and being able to find other like-minded people who would prefer no disruption and new freebies forever, doesn't make unfounded expectations enforceable, nor should it.

I'd be extremely careful speaking of any singular "community". And of assuming that everyone in it expected Redis or another similar project to work just like Linux or other exceptional projects. Most devs dealing with open source have a project relicense---among many others than simply grind to a halt---at some point in their career. For some devs, Redis may have been the first. Others "adopted" Redis knowing the risk and accepting it.

> It's a bit surprising to see the former used by an American author in an American publication, however.

Strange things happen to American writers who read lots of Russian novels translated by Brits.

> not a person who turned off Ukraine's starlink access on a whim based on his personal opinion of an international event

I marked this story to follow up on when it broke, because it interested me.

I'm no Musk fan, but I did find his telling of this story credible: Starlink was initially disabled in Crimea due to sanctions, the Ukrainian uncrewed surface vehicle team assumed coverage would be available all the way to their target, and Musk declined to extend coverage when they asked at the last minute, in the context of a specific, planned military operation. I happen to be a lawyer familiar with those sanctions---and how businesses tend to address them---but you could cross-reference stories about GitHub and others freezing accounts of people logging in from Crimean IPs for a sense.

Either way, I'd be careful with words here. I don't recall any reports of Starlink being shut down for Ukraine or Ukrainian forces overall. There was another news arc some time before about Musk insisting the government pick up the tab for continued service. But as far as I know that never resulted in any major service disruption. I vaguely recall it's now on Department of Defense contract, but you'd want to check that.