

Seeing how codeberg is FOSS only, I’m not suprised. Vibe-coded projects is a HUGE legal trap considering licensing. And seeing how it’s based in Germany (notorious about siding with license owner against regular individuals) it only makes sense


Seeing how codeberg is FOSS only, I’m not suprised. Vibe-coded projects is a HUGE legal trap considering licensing. And seeing how it’s based in Germany (notorious about siding with license owner against regular individuals) it only makes sense


I’m pretty sure it’s because Robux are more valuable than Rubles


Considering that Quest is sold at a loss and tries to make money forcing you to buy games, I don’t think it’s likely


If you design a product to be intentionally difficult to repair, using subpar parts, is it not planned obsolescence? I really don’t get what you are about there. Unless you require some sort of an internal clock to force brick the device to be considered planned?
Everything else is correct and I agree.


What it reeks of is Nintendo wanting to make things cheap and sell you multiple of them
That’s the “apple like” planned obsolesence part I was refering to. Think about airpods for example.
The teardown doesn’t touch on part serialization, although the ability to brick your device if they “feel like it” is on PAR with Apple.
Although I’m not sure we should be arguing about which of the two is shittier when both are already deep in non compliance of “modern right to repair regulations (lmao)”


The switch 2 gives out complete apple vibes. It’s repairability is pretty horrid after watching the teardown guide.
Controllers will fail sooner or later and will have to be replaced. Here it will end up replacing the whole stick just due to glueing small parts of the controller.
Battery will also fail sooner than later. The whole thing yells planned absolesence…


Easy there, Powder… Although you are absolutely right


Wasn’t there a licensing issue with jpeg xl for using Microsoft’s some sort of algo?
What? The point I was trying to make is that AI generated content is going to be treated as CC licensed. It is difficult to incorporate under other FOSS projects. Mostly considering that it doesn’t exactly distinguish between code, library, binary and patents. It’s simplier to avoid it altogether if your primary mission is FOSS
Considering your comment about verification of authorship, it’s likely to be treated the same as it is now. You are the author, unless proven otherwise. And you are right. Even if you are the author and wrote every single code yourself, you can infringe on someones paten