I've read criticism of media I've never even heard of (and learned some insightful things), so clearly the original IP isn't always the pull, and even if it was I don't understand how talking about something suddenly means I need to pay the person who owns the intellectual property of the thing I'm talking about. I think it would make criticism less likely and put us in an even worse situation than today, when large corporations often use the DMCA to take down clearly fair-use criticism. Just a further stifling of speech.

Also, fair use has been around since the eighteenth century, even if in the US the US 1976 Copyright Act made fair use statutory.

Also, what's a "survival desktop"? I've never heard that term and I couldn't find it used elsewhere.

In reality it would vary whole lot, not just in terms of time and place in a general sense, but also for individual families. If you had many relatives nearby, perhaps, but in some cases you might not, or you might actually have to be taking care of not just your children but also your parents-in-law who are disabled and your aunt who is mentally unstable partially due to her own husband and children dying in the famine a couple years back.

And maybe you are also poor so you need to work land that isn't even your own, in addition to your own (maybe rented) plot, and you are socially shunned on top of that and your neighbors sure as hell aren't going to help out with your own children. But at least you only have two kids now since two died and you managed to give another away to live his whole life in a monastery.

"And most importantly, it reinforces a simple but urgent truth: In the world of OT, security is no longer optional. It is foundational."

Worse is if they require a phone number then text you each and every step as well as email you. Some places you can "opt out" of texting but then the next order will just repeat the process.

All I want is an order confirmed email, and an order shipped email with the tracking number. I get maybe some people want a "delivered" email but I don't even want that, I'll see it, it can sit there an hour it's ok; if it's something really important I'll be looking at the tracking anyhow.

And while I'm complaining, it sure would be great to get rid of the syrupy language some use: "Get excited!!! Your order is being packed!!!!" Yes, I am glad I will receive a bunch of paper towels, but it is, I can assure you, not exciting.

P.S. edit: I just got two emails a few minutes ago (both for the same single order) stating that my order was on the way and would arrive... in twenty minutes. Which I think is a new one, I don't think I've gotten an "your order is less than half hour away" email before.

"At the time, nobody could imagine that the companies that had supported OpenOffice.org until then would create a project to kill LibreOffice."

Did they mean... to kill OpenOffice? Or had supported LibreOffice would want to create a project to kill it later? Because that fact that companies who had previously supported OpenOffice then switched to LibreOffice doesn't strike me as odd, given the situation with Oracle back then. Also, what is the "project" that is trying to kill LibreOffice?

I am not clear on how the Board of Directors differs from The Document Foundation (are they just the Board of Directors of The Document Foundation then?).

What is "TDC"? It is not even clear what that stands for, nor what this "parallel organization" was supposed to do and how it differed from The Document Foundation. And if "the plan to transfer many of TDF’s tasks and assets" to "TDC" didn't happen back in 2020, why is it being brought up here? But then the next paragraph talks about the transfer so it did happen the year before? But then was terminated? Again though, I don't get why it matters now except maybe that some people were upset by that move over five years ago.

"This attempt resulted in permanent damage to relations between the project’s components, and especially between certain BoD members and the team."

Who is "the team"? The Document Foundation?

"After years of discussions marked by accusations and finger-pointing, during which no real progress was made in resolving the legal issues, the authorities requested an audit..."

Who are "the authorities" requesting the audit?

A "third audit" was mentioned, but it is unclear if the one audit mentioned above in the post was that third one or one of the previous ones (describing these and when they happened would have helped).

I still have no clue as to what Collabora's relationship was and is to The Document Foundation.

They apologize for the need for this post, but I don't really understand why. I get the idea that, given their non-profit nature, there were issues, but making those more clear seems laudable (even if I don't think the post especially helped in doing so).