You'd think so, but Julia has been around a while now. Julia was one of the first non-python languages added back when it was still called ipython. I remember sitting in a room at the CfA with Fernando Perez and Steven Johnson and hacking up then original integration. Don't remember exactly when that was but more than a decade ago.
It always amuses me when people assume that the nefarious scheme is taking open source contributions and selling them. That's not the nefarious scheme. The nefarious scheme is going to partners, funding agencies and investors and saying "look at this unique capability / important research / profitable business opportunity that we can do together, but oops, all of our code is written in Julia, so I guess we better pay some people to maintain it so it'll all come crashing down, wouldn't want that to happen".
Also, I'm of course using nefarious in jest here in both cases. While we don't directly try to monetize our open source work, I respect that sometimes people need to do that. As long as people are transparent about it, I don't have a problem. Doing the thing we're doing seems to work, but it's a lot harder, because you have to build a successful pice of software and a (or multiple) successful something elses that has a critical dependency on it. It's like hitting the lottery twice.
Congratulations to the Oxide team! It's a tough market out there :)! I'm still personally frustrated that I don't get to play with the hardware (too expensive for our internal server needs; not the right fit for our datacenter partners/customers), but I'm excited to see that they're successful and hopefully they'll come around to my use case eventually :). In the meantime, I appreciate that they're building largely in the open - every once in a while I'll glance at their issue tracker for light bedtime reading. Just recently we had some fun internally throwing our controls software at their thermal loop as a usage example - it's often hard to find compelling real-world systems to use as openly sharable examples (of course we have interesting customer problems, but that's all NDA'd), so having companies build real stuff in the open is fantastic. Great company, wish them the best.
The full complaint linked above has a full list of trademarks. There's also a claim for trade dress infringement, since the food truck uses the same font and red-yellow-white color scheme.
You're supposed to generate a random one, but the only consequence of not doing so is that you won't be able to register your package if someone else already took the UUID (which is a pain if you have registered versions in a private registry). That said, "vanity" UUIDs are a bad look, so we'd probably reject them if someone tried that today, but there isn't any actual issue with them.
Sure, that seems plausible, but I still don't think that translates into the kind of user that would take the StackOverflow survey, which I suspect to mostly be users that are quite active on StackOverflow. More generally, I'm seeing StackOverflow metrics underperform on Julia compared to other languages (as opposed to things like Discourse usage for example).
Honestly, I'm pretty happy there were enough responses for them to actually call it out separately in the results. I'm not sure that was the case last year. Also, I think Julia's audience tends to not hang out on StackOverflow as much, since they're often scientists primarily and software developers second. Sure they use StackOverflow, but how many have an account and would answer a survey.
I thought so too reading the first couple of pages of the decision, but in the judicial conclusion section, the jurisdictional issue is squarely resolved on the "targets German users" issue, which the court bases on
1) Partial translation of the website
2) The availability of German language works
3) The "anyone anywhere" language on the website
4) A disclaimer that people should check their local laws (implying in the opinion of the court that they knew non-US persons were accessing their material and intentionally targeting their offering to such people).
So yeah, while the language issue is only part of the judicial reasoning, is is indeed mentioned three times in the judicial conclusions. The court does not however appear to adopt plaintiff's theory on jurisdiction because some of the volunteers were German.
As such, I'm inclined to think that while the focus on the language issue is perhaps a bit overstated in their statement, it is definitely grounded in the opinion of the court.
As an aside though, I'm not convinced the court spent too much time considering the jurisdictional arguments here, which I think are probably the most important part of this case. Most of the analysis is concerned with whether the publisher plausibly alleged they own the copyright. I assume that is because that is usually the primary point of contention in copyright cases.
Reach me at [email protected]