I am not a lawyer, but in US the federal law consists of 2 parts: US Code (USC), and Code of Federal Regulation (CFR).
The USC is created and maintained by the Congress. USC delegates to federal agencies implementation of USC through CFR, i.e. by writing it. Any changes to CFR, should be published and given a comment period, my understanding that it's 6 months. During this time, the Congress has option to review, and disapprove changes to CFR if they see that it makes sense. (Others could also write comments and send them to the federal agency).
My non-lawyerish understanding is that this describes proposed changes to CFR within the authority delegated by the congress.
>> Apart from the lottery changes, the Biden administration is also proposing, for the first time, to allow entrepreneurs to sponsor themselves for an H-1B visa. Until now, with narrow exceptions, professionals on these visas were required to be employees rather than owners of a company.
That change, if successful, would have a seismic impact on Silicon valley, where many of the people launching new tech startups are foreign-born and have few or no long-term options to remain in the country, typically after coming here for college.
Yeah this seems like a pretty big change i think will be taken to court for. This effectively makes the h1b visa an eb5 visa.
Of course. You don't need to investigate the license, learn about the vendor, inquire about payment structure, talk to sales people, justify the purchase to your manager, etc. There's much less friction, all thing being equal.
> True...it's just difficult to draft a license that says something along the lines of "If you're Big Tech, we have the right to go after you, if you're small startup, you're safe".
Take a look at the license of LLAMA2 by FB. It has a clause just like this. I.e. limit by number of users.
wow, didn't know about this. very cool + would be interesting to see this in more places. Just checked it out. for those lazy:
"If, on the Llama 2 version release date, the
monthly active users of the products or services made available by or for Licensee,
or Licensee's affiliates, is greater than 700 million monthly active users in the
preceding calendar month, you must request a license from Meta, which Meta may
grant to you in its sole discretion, and you are not authorized to exercise any of the
rights under this Agreement unless or until Meta otherwise expressly grants you
such rights."
It’s very interesting how enforceable this trademark policy is. There’re trademark fair use, and it looks like they try to take away some part of it, through forbidding to use word Rust in other product names.
> There’re trademark fair use, and it looks like they try to take away some part of it, through forbidding to use word Rust in other product names.
I’m not familiar with any form of trademark fair use that would extend to use of the mark in a product name that is in any way within the scope where (fair use aside) trademark would be an issue. Nominative fair use of trademark would extend to using the trademark in product descriptions to describe specifically the thing that the mark refers to; it lets you say things like that your product is for use with Microsoft Windows. But it won’t let you use “Microsoft Windows” as part of your product name.
Policies aren't always binding. There're companies which include a point about complying with the trademark policies in their terms of use, there're some which just located on their site under the name guidance.
Which is completely unsurprising since ROS (Reactive Oxygen Species) are used by organisms to kill cancer cells, bacteria and other foreign stuff in the body.
I don't exactly understand how you could use it for commercial use in the original license quoted in the thread:
>You may download or copy the Content (and other items displayed on the Services for download) for personal non-commercial use only, provided that you maintain all copyright and other notices contained in such Content. You shall not store any significant portion of any Content in any form.
Does personal non-commercial use allow use for work purposes somehow?
Is anyone aware of plans to port Asahi changes to make other linux distros, i.e. Ubuntu, and others, to be able to run without additional setup on M1 Macs?
Asahi changes are being done in such a way as to be upstreamable, at which point any kernel derived off of mainline will pick up their fixes, so eventually detault Ubuntu will run on Apple Silicon. Expect a custom kernel that can be setup with a bit of work before then though.
The USC is created and maintained by the Congress. USC delegates to federal agencies implementation of USC through CFR, i.e. by writing it. Any changes to CFR, should be published and given a comment period, my understanding that it's 6 months. During this time, the Congress has option to review, and disapprove changes to CFR if they see that it makes sense. (Others could also write comments and send them to the federal agency).
My non-lawyerish understanding is that this describes proposed changes to CFR within the authority delegated by the congress.