i don't do that every time i want to send money. private individuals don't just "run checks" - it would make commerce untenable and possibly unconstitutional.

say you get a passport, an address, a photo, a signature, a phone call - how do you verify any of this is real?

You still need to form a valid contract - no notice, no assent, no contract.

If there's a gate that's being bypassed then this all changes but it doesn't seem like there is - and it doesn't seem like they can add one without breaking existing printers.

While the right of access is not granted by AGPL - it is not reasonable to run a public service with an AGPL client and say you shouldn't be connecting to it.

They are doing a lot of work to create implied consent under CFAA.

If you want to control access you must do something to control access - it must reach a threshold, it cannot just be a public user agent string.

With authentication it's "gates up" and then "without authorization" from CFAA kicks in. I think it's unlikely that a user agent string creates a "gates up" situation, especially not if it's from code granted under a permissive license.

are you one of those anti-trade people where the only real ""growth"" doesn't involve foreigners

If one takes the opinion interstate commerce means buying, selling and transporting.

It's also how the current system works. Most drug convictions are based on state law. Federal drug prosecutions are 2% of the total. Every state has its version of controlled substances act.

Nothing much would change at all.

I wouldn't find this annoying at all - I would expect to have to do this for hundreds of packages.

Without unpaid volunteers things like Debian do not exist. Don't malign the situation and circumstances of other projects, especially if they are your competitors.

Compete by being better, not by complaining louder.

It is an affirmative defense, you to be able to argue the merits. If you publish their source code, they are allowed to come after you whether they have previously used fair use or not. It's fact specific and determined case by case.

Anthropic won half of their fair use argument in the billion dollar settlement, but lost the other half.

You can say you're just using their code to train your own models, just like they did, and they will correctly point out that how you obtained the code also matters and you will lose just like they did.

how do you have it build a "trading strategy"? it's like asking it to draw you the "best picture".

it will ask you so many questions you end up building the thing yourself.

if you do get something, given that you didn't write it and might not understand how to interpret the data its using - how will you know whether it's trading alpha or trading risk?

I think there's zero point to having a monopoly if you don't distribute the profits.

If you have some argument that dividends are better than buybacks I don't care.