I practice law in California. I've written terms of service that many, many people here on HN will have agreed to. I read this line and didn't know what it meant, or what it intended to mean.

That said:

> If you are actually a lawyer then it'd be interesting to hear your guidance, which I very much understand is not legal advice. If you're not a lawyer then I'm not.

There's no good way to validate lawyerdom on public social media like HN. And while the average lawyer probably remembers enough from law school or bar exams to know slightly more about Web terms of service and legal drafting than the average person, there's nothing to stop non-lawyers from reading up and learning. Eric Goldman's Technology & Marketing Law Blog is a great, public source covering cases on ToS and other issues, for example.

The Bar monopolizes representation within legal institutions. Don't cede the law itself to lawyers.

Har har.

There is a fundamental corpo-cognitive dissonance, to boot. If "AI" is cheap enough and good enough to implement security-relevant software from `git init` repeatedly, why isn't it also cheap enough and good enough to assess and approve the security of third-party software at pace with internal adoption? Is there some basis to believe LLMs' leverage on production differs from its leverage on analysis of existing code?

Lawyers don't own law. The law belongs to the public. So says this active attorney member of the State Bar of California, and I'll stand on any law firm's conference table in my boots and say that.

If the Fed goes back to cutting rates, it could be soon.

In addition to noun inflection, verb aspect, pronunciation stress, and punctuation trouble many native English speakers. That's in addition to all the simple irregularities, like irregular nouns and verbs.

Stress even troubles native speakers. When I lived there, I saw slideshow "where 's the stress?" quizzes used to fill time on screens in taxi buses, waiting rooms, and the like.

MongoDB invested sufficient resources in drafting an update to the AGPL. That license is called the Server Side Public License. Controversy ensued.

If you're looking for a seer with a salvation plan---as technology, legal innovation, organizational form---I don't have hope to offer you.

Look at the figureheads of free and open, the "philosophers". The ones we remember succeeded, but not on the terms of the lofty gospels they preached. Very few practical systems are "free". Most competitive software is closed, and sharing code across orgs still sucks much of the time. Linus succeeded, but Linus just wanted to code, get respect, and make good money. Glad he did.

Thinking we'd seen the end of software history got us here. Now I see more willingness to try new things again. They mostly wither or fail, but so did most early attempts at "free". Mutation, selection, adaptation.

I couldn't escape the waste until I was willing to give up the idea of myself as experienced, as an expert. Until I accepted that time served taught me lessons, but didn't bestow authority. Most people coming into this are new. They relearn what's useful and leave the rest behind. That's part of adaptation. I try to see their point of view.

If you ask a newer coder what "open source" means, they might say "like MIT?" or even just "like GitHub?" If you look "open" up in a good thesaurus, "available" is there. The Initiative---really, whoever's on the board now or later---will never own or effectively police the term "open source", much less "open source AI". And nobody claiming "open source" for good or ill will ever summon on themself the kind of attention or cachet that marketing bauble once commanded, no matter what their license says.

As for fellow oldheads, there's no resolving contradictions between ways we learned to frame these issues, decades ago. Can changes to a license be a solution to the funding problem? Can using freedom terms to buttress a business count as truly open? That bizarre conflict of ontologies won't decide where programming goes in the future, if it ever did. I doubt it will even be won or lost. It will just fade away, like the circumstances that started it.

DHH can kick the anthill. The activists can raise their old hue and cry. It's purely elective, demoded dramatics. The real problems of software politics today aren't expressible in either schema. They can even seem tautologically unsolvable. Meanwhile, we've got new aspirational generalities that aren't expressible in the old ways of speaking. "Sustainability", because many doing good aren't doing so well. "Decentralization", because we're all sharecropping on some platform now.

Sometimes I think the best I can do for the younger generations facing today is just to never impose petty trivia about "the movement" ever again. Never deign imply I know what they should consider important. If "free" and "open" meant something to me, let their inheritors tell me what they mean now, in practice. Tell me about the world they built and left for them.

Maybe I don't have to choose. After all, who reads blogs?

It is a bit smug. Like The Matrix rebranding itself "24/7".

Below that, lots of haggling and informal trade often help people get by. The costs of that process can be another burden on the poor. At the high end, it's worth involving people with discretion on the sell side. Additionally, sales are often one-off and customized. They may also bundle a bunch of different items and benefits without clear line-item breakdowns.

When hiring a lawyer, I'd nearly always recommend getting terms down in a written and signed engagement letter before work starts. That is very much a negotiation, but it's fine to ask questions and comparison shop.

If you're starting with a call, it's perfectly normal to start by asking whether initial consultation will be billed or not. If it will be, ask the rate. If it won't be, expect some limits on what can be discussed. The best lawyers I know aren't cheap or easily tricked into giving free advice on consultation calls with speedrunners, but they are up-front about what they charge for and how.

Disclosure: Am lawyer. Negotiate professionally.

The fundamental policy choice was to protect computer software under intellectual property law, with exclusive rights and market compensation. There were a number of ways that could have been done. Other jurisdictions toyed with new, software-specific laws. But in the end the call in the US was to bring it under existing copyright law with some tweaks to definitions and a small handful of software-specific rules.

The question is whether any particular argument's strong or weak. That's a matter of evidence and reasoning.

The Supreme Court decision in Oracle v Google skipped over copyrightability and addressed fair use. Fair use is a legal defense, applying only in response to finding infringement, which can only be found if material's copyrightable. So the way the Supreme Court made its decision was weird, but it wasn't about the creativity requirement.

    - trigger: ";tod"
      replace: "{{mydate}}"
      vars:
      - name: mydate
        type: shell
        params:
          cmd: date --iso-8601