They aren't the same thing. Under US law pre-1989, publication without notice would lead to a loss of copyright, but publication WITH a copyright notice, that is, publication of a copyrighted item, meant all rights were reserved (unless licensed).
There are different levels to these things. The number of SIM card slots or bands varying from model to model isn't that unusual. The average user just needs it to work. In fact, the SIM and band configuration differences have nothing to do with regional legal mimina — they have more to do with the standard practice and available systems in each region (for example, mmWave isn't widely deployed outside the US). The configurations aren't really "worse" in the same way as locking down browser access is worse. Phones have had regional variants going back ~forever for pretty mundane and benign reasons.
More importantly, if a user travels from one region to another, as long as they can use their phone in the place they arrive, having slightly non-optimal bands or a different SIM configuration doesn't matter. The fact that your phone is slightly different from the local model is not really a problem.
But having your charger vary across regions? That's a recipe for disaster. Not only is that another level of variance in your external casing, it impacts day-to-day use. When an American user travels to, say, France, or vice versa, and wants to buy a charger, or share one with someone else, having the same model of iPhone be incompatible would be a major frustration. It would be stupid to engineer a lightning AND USB-C version of the same device for each market.
Any license that discriminates based on use case would not qualify as open source under the Open Source Initiative definition, nor as free software under the FSF definition. You also shouldn't expect for your project/code to be reused by or incorporated into any free or open-source projects, since your license would be incompatible.
You can release software under whatever license you want, though whether any restriction would be legally enforceable is another matter.
These things are essentially the opposite of one another. Bellard's project is a PC emulator in JavaScript. Compiling things to wasm is pretty trivial now, but jslinux was much more impressive when it came out. It actually still is, for reasons you can see in the technical notes: https://bellard.org/jslinux/tech.html
This project, on the other hand, is the opposite (and kind of a joke): a set of Linux utilities mostly written in JavaScript.
My old school district moved from a localized URL of this kind to a .org a number of years ago (in the early 2010s). It seems to just have become the style, but I never really got it. I'm sure there was a significant cost to migrating what was a perfectly working setup to a whole new domain for website and email!
The original intention was to allow for what is called a "line-item veto." Let's say you had a bill (and this is not uncommon) with a lot of basically unrelated provisions. It creates programs A, B and C. This would allow the governor to approve A and C but not B, and would prevent the sort of "horse-trading" that legislators like to do ("I'll support your pet idea if you support mine").
That was the idea. But Wisconsin has twisted into something else entirely. Arguably, the idea was not a good one to begin with, anyway.
This is really just a mistranslation. The author's native language seems to be Spanish. The Spanish word propósito can be translated as "purpose" or "intention." Here, it really means "intention."