I would argue that we don't need new regulations, we need to enforce existing laws against fraud. It is fraudulent to sell something and then later disable ones access to the thing you sold them access to.
From the horses mouth: "Michael Niedermayer, a leading FFmpeg developer, tweeted, “I am the main developer fixing security issues in FFmpeg. I have fixed over 2700 Google OSS fuzz issues. I have fixed most of the BIGSLEEP issues. And i disagree with the comments FFmpeg (Kieran) has made about Google. From all companies, Google has been the most helpful & nice.” https://thenewstack.io/ffmpeg-to-google-fund-us-or-stop-send...
Sounds like Google has been very helpful and nice.
Sorry, I am aware of this, I worded my comment incorrectly. What I meant to say is that one will be unable to ask for money for a ~different license~ to my contributions, becuase my contributions will be under the copyleft license, and I will not sign any agreements that give the project maintainers rights to license my contributions under a proprietary (Non open source) license. Yes, anyone is still free to ask for money for copy left code. But it is still copy left, and as such, the license goes with it.
The Drupal Association and its mismanagement of the community? I don't know how dead Drupal is, but I used to actively use and promote it and I have long since moved on, due in part to the Drupal Associations shenanigans.
If you share your code with me under a copy left license, I will share my contributions under the same copy left license... you will not then be free to ask for money for things built on top of or with my contributions. You may be okay with that, but it is a decision you have to make.
I am pretty sure that these industries use the open source projects the Linux Foundation maintains. So it is pretty clear the Linux Foundation is indeed a user community group, too.
So far, the Linux Foundation, from what I have seen, has pretty darn good track record of keeping the projects under its umbrella open source, even going against corporate sponsors to do so. For a recent example, see the recent NATS tuffle. (And I should.recognize that Synadia, finally, did the right thing and backed down).
Big tech didn't steal anything. Elastic used open source software as the foundation of their product (specifically, Apache Lucene), and released their product as open source. The license allowed Elastic to do so, and likewise, the license Elastic used allowed "big tech" to use Elastics product. If it wasn't for open source, Elastic wouldn't exist.
Then, Elastic whined about Amazon using Elastic under the open source license they used to build their product. They whined that Amazon wasn't contributing enough. So they switched the license to their product. So Amazon took over maintaining the open source software. Doing exactly what Elastic asked them to do.
Sorry, but everything about Elastic, and especially this most recent announcement of layoffs, scream "bad leadership".
Elastic isn't Open Source though, they abandoned Open Source. It seems to me like this is an example of non-Open Source whatever licensing causing job loss. Or just plain bad leadership.
It would be absolute stupidity for a property owner to keep a property vacant solely to reduce the property tax assessment. Certainly there are some stupid rich people... but I doubt that the majority are that stupid. There must be some other explanation.
In another article, it mentions that there is a buffer zone still owned by the city between the houses and the datacenter. They also mention that there is another park nearby (doesn't say how near).