eleijeep

That's the excuse they give you. The real reason is that they don't want employees expressing their personalities or affiliations while representing the company.

Because in that case the copyright holder is the arbitrator of the terms under which their copyrighted material can be used and reproduced. If they did not own the copyright then any “license” would not be worth the paper it was written on and no judge would allow it to be treated as an implicit contract.

The GPL is not a contract.

it’s not very funny

In order to "license" a work, you need to own the copyright.

yeah nah

Well personally I don't, but I'm not the copyright holder of the Firefox codebase.

Personally I don't want any ad-tech related code in my browser, unless it's for blocking ads and tracking scripts. Allowing ads on startpage probably doesn't really entail that though. It's probably just a simple rule adding an exception to the blocking rules. It's not a good precedent though. If I was a Waterfox user, I'd be uneasy about this.

It’s a bit more complicated than that because MPL is itself a weak copyleft license that requires that the MPL licensed source code is always made available to recipients of a binary or derived work. The difference from GPL is that it does not require that all additional parts of the derived work are also licensed under MPL, (ie. not viral copyleft) meaning that the MPL licensed work can be linked with proprietary code without requiring that the proprietary code make its source available, but unlike BSD or MIT licenses it does not allow the MPL licensed code to be made proprietary. The complication comes when linking MPL code with GPL code, even though MPL is GPL-compatible, since this requires that the entire derived work must now be made available under the GPL, while the original MPL licensed parts become dual-licensed under both MPL and GPL. If Waterfox developers allowed this then it would prohibit the use of the whole derived work in proprietary projects (as they would now need to be GPL), so it would be removing rights that they have already given to downstream users of their code. Proprietary projects would therefore have to remove the GPL licensed additions (in this case it would be the UblockOrigin code) and link just the MPL licensed parts, which would mean using only part of the whole browser. Personally I agree with you: I prefer GPL licensed projects. But MPL is not a bad license and I can understand and respect that some developers would make that choice (especially since the project is already licensed under MPL as it’s a fork of Firefox).

max 50Gb is the catch

Which bit?

For every $x of increased revenue that the AI company gets from their customer whose chatbot is being abused you would have to also use $x of tokens from the free trials of that same AI company.

Will it get finished this time? Place your bets! My money is on the project getting cancelled before they finish.

They’ll have to come crawling back when the business customers stop buying. AI winter is coming.

He didn’t even mention his Patreon in the video. You have to scroll to the end of the description to see the link. It’s nowhere near as blatant as most YouTube creators out there, and I actually thought it was quite a good opinion piece with some well researched introduction. Not sure I agree with the title of the video though. I assume that’s why it has so many downvotes here?

If you mean which top level domains exist, that’s ICANN. If you mean who administers the .christmas domain specifically, that’s Uniregistry (owned by GoDaddy).