There is no one-size-fits-all, but I would say NFS is nowadays not a preferred option for most modern distributed datastores. They are fine with local storage only, and achieve coordination with higher-level protocols. Running them on top of NFS kills their performance.
Photographs presented as works of art have something about the choice of what and how to photograph that is artistic. I can't just, like, take a photo of my leg and call it art. At least not without writing a thought-provoking blurb about is a photo of a leg really art? Then it becomes artistic parody, like the toilet sculpture.
As explained in the judgement, being well-known is irrelevant. This is not about consumer protection, but about brand protection.
You are right that the decision has the potential to confuse consumers. However, that is on Open AI, they should have consulted trademark lawyers earlier, and should have rebranded after shifting from open AI to commercial AI.
Open AI has an independent descriptive meaning as composite term. You would practically trademark a whole class of products, not only a brand name.
In contrast, open text is not descriptive in the sense of being a category of things. Therefore there is no risk that competitors would run into trademark issues by just describing their products.
Also, trademark decisions are always contextual to their time. Today’s meaning of ‘open’ in the context of software and data was not even coined in 1991, at that time people used ‘free software’ as term. Today I am not sure if ‘open text’ could still be trademarked.
>Open AI has an independent descriptive meaning as composite term.
See my edit. "Open Systems" also had an independent descriptive meaning. The phrase "open systems" was a very common generic phrase in 1990s when companies talking about POSIX compliance was a big deal. (E.g. Microsoft touted POSIX in Windows NT.)
They have this information anyway if you have an EU passport or an identity card. The government app allows you to share selected properties of these documents with third parties.
It’s not only government shares that info, the government can keep track on with which parties they shared that info and for what purpose.
As an example if I’m obliged to share my ID data via government to open a twitter account how would I know that the government would not link my twitter account to my ID and later use that info keep track of me and prosecute?
People would think that it would never happen, but not long ago that actually happened in East Germany. The Stasi kept track/files on almost every East German and this would be a digital version of the same thing
What would you do that, they start with open source app, make the online is mandatory and once it’s established and mandated, then they closed source the app and implement data collection?
There is no guarantee that the app would stay open source and under public scrutiny forever. Governments have done way shady things in the past. Given the recent push for chat control, I would never trust anything put out by EU.
You receive permission to use and modify a piece of software under conditions set by the creator. It is a license, not a gift. If you don’t like the conditions, use something else or create your own thing.
I will never understand these complaints. Not only do you want stuff for free, you also want to impose your preferred usage conditions on the creator. Where does this entitlement come from?
You’re confused. The author chooses to gift their software to the world when they choose a free software license.
Presumably people who choose the AGPL choose it because they believe it is a free software license. Either they should use an actual coherent free software license instead of one that is trying (and probably failing) to also be a EULA, or they should stop pretending that they are releasing free software.
>booking.com is in NL, and Spotify in SE. Both outcompeted quite some US competitors.
Like wich? Does it count that a lot of their shareholders and managers are in the US? Does it count that Apple music can do the same thing as Spotify and that Booking has loads of competitors that do the same thing? They have no technical moat other than being first to the market. ASML does have a moat.
>I would add Hetzner as an example that EU labor laws are no obstacle to being competitive with US companies.
Sure, but Hetzner is a dust spec compared to AWS, virtually irrelevant outside of EU/Germany. They also came to the market much later than AWS once building a hyperscaler became more of a commodity.
One one hand, lax labor laws means you can be first to market and capture most of it before the EU can wake up from their 3 month holiday and decide to pivot but can't because unions are blocking it. See VW.
On the other, Austria has very lax labor laws around firing people, similar to US and they have next to no big tech companies so that's not the entire formula. You also need the VC capital of Sequoia and AZ16 which doesn't exist in Austria, you need the scale which doesn't exist in Austria, the low tax caproate environment which doesn't exist in Austria, and a small government regulatory environment which doesn't exist in Austria.
The ones who were defamed are companies, and the ones who don’t check the AI generated response are their potential customers which won’t buy from them.
It is obvious that the defamed companies are the ones having a problem, not the ignorant viewers.
Why should those companies not hold Google liable for that outcome?
> Just like 1.3 million global road traffic deaths per year are the price society pays for having cars, and believing that people should still be able to freely own and drive cars doesn’t make someone a “car absolutist”.
Car traffic is heavily regulated to reduce the harm being done by cars/drivers.
