It's "let's not take your picture inside of the office because everyone hates the inside of offices. let's take your picture outside instead, near the office, but not featuring the office. oh, that tree over there is nice, but darn, the lighting underneath its branches isn't great. hey, that hedge over there reads great in light test and it works with what you're wearing, so, yeah, that'll do just fine."
In this context, the license is for using the Arduino Studio application. This is hosted by Arduino, and therefore needs to take user input, save it and work with it. As I understand it, this puts them in a complex situation: they don't own the code you've written (obviously), but they do need to do things with it like compile it and run it (when you press the button in the IDE). They're also hosting the code and therefore partly legally responsible for it.
At the very least, you need some sort of user agreement to specify the things you can do with their content, otherwise you can't really do it because it's their content and you're not allowed to mess with it by default. (Like you said, code is copyrighted by default.) You also need to specify the things that are necessary by law because you are hosting that code and therefore in part responsible for it. You also don't want to make the user sign a new agreement every other week if you add some new feature that they need to agree to use, because the cost of all those legal documents is prohibitive, and it's also very bad UX.
Added to this the fact that lawyers are naturally very conservative as a profession (generally only doing things that have been proven successful, rather than avoiding things that have been proven unsuccessful), and it's easy to see why these sorts of agreements tend to be more expansive than they perhaps need to be, in order to ensure the company is fully protected.
Is this actually true? Doesn't the action of directing someone to compile this code, mean they are allowed to compile this code? Of course they are not allowed to do anything else, but this is what I want as a user. I think it is more, that the vendors want to push the user to grant them more rights than what would be strictly necessary for them to do they job they "sell".
This is what's been explained to me before. The problem is that lawyers don't necessarily work on the basis of "if it seems reasonable that the user allowed this, then this is allowed". Their goal is to make a contract that, if they need to go to court, will make their job as easy as possible. So it's not enough to say "obviously the user pressed the 'compile' button and we needed to do all this stuff to make that happen, here's all my technical experts who agree", instead they would rather say "paragraph 3 subsection 12 clearly allows this behaviour and the user has agreed to it".
It's also, as I understand it, the reason why law has so much of an emphasis on seemingly magic phrases that you copy and repeat in all sorts of different places. These are phrases that have already been tested and have a meaning that has been made clear in a court of law, so if you need to go to court to defend them, you can pull up the existing case law on the subject and rely on that, rather than having to analyse exactly what the new wording means. Hence why these T&C documents tend to have a lot of fairly standard phrases that don't obviously mean what you expect them to mean.
I would recommend the two episodes "Three Robots" and "Three Robots: Exit Strategies" from the anthology series Love, Death and Robots if you like this kind of humor.
In the puzzle game series The Talos Principle, intelligent robots (who were made to outlive humanity after a species-ending global pandemic) seem to have the exact same kind of affinity for caring for cats that humans do. It's actually really sweet and cute.
Boox devices are riddled with phone home to all sorts of domains, including to .cn domains, just run tcpdump on your firewall and watch. You should do absolutely nothing security conscious with them. For example, like putting keys on them, or sshing into a box with them.
At least with vnc, you could create a private network between the boox and your linux box, and it'd be sharing the screen. Still an issue, but passwords and hidden fields would be typed on the keyboard on the Linux box, not the boox.
I rooted mine, and installed afwall, and still won't ever used it for anything security conscious.
When I tried (and returned) one of their monitors, it was absolutely horrific with ghosting. This was perhaps 5 years ago.
There was no manual, and it had a closed source application to time or force refresh. Of course, being closed source it wouldn't work on a Pi (arm64), nor did I feel comfortable about unknown code, or it working in a few years on a newer version of Linux.
It was all exceptionally poorly done. Amazon says it was a Dasung E-Ink Paperlike 3 HD Front-Light and Touch 13.3" Monitor.
If the app had been OSS, or it had an open API via the cable, I could have scripted an auto-refresh upon scrolling in vi or some such. Or just hacked into something seeing change scope under X. Point is, I could have made it work for me.
The default modes were terrible.
I hope things are better, but no way will I install some weird closed source client.
I have a fairly new tablet, and it handles refresh incredibly well, but I'm sure that's with strong integration into the display stack. Which is fine, of course, but that doesn't help me with coding.
EDIT: one of the things which makes some of these e-ink tablets incredible for refresh, is partial, very well done sectional refresh. So if a small part of the screen changes, BAM!, it's refreshed instantly for ghosting.
Again, I suspect this is tied into the display stack. The monitors I've seen don't seem anywhere as good. I'd love to to be wrong on newer models.
There are escalative methods to employ in such situations.
In many legal jurisdictions, a 'demand letter' holds weight. These can be served by courier, with proof of delivery as valid. One aspect of such a letter is a hard, specific time by which you will start legal action, along with associated additional costs.
You have two paths after the letter. The first is small claims court, or normal court. In many places, small claims court does not allow lawyers, and the judge will even have to explain any confusing terms.
Which means the playing is leveled, including reduced or no disclosure requirements, and legal cost assignments. Where I am, it's $100 to file.
The goal is to force a fix, at threat of legal consequences.
There are a few physical Google stores. They aren't really very helpful at anything, and even don't have phones in stock often.
I went to one, wanted a Pixel Fold in the spring, and was told "we'll get one". Some guy left to do so, and 20 minutes later I just walked out. Just as with everything else, when Google does it, it's half-assed.
The broken logic is that it will expose why the account was flagged, and thus, allow 'bad actors' to better navigate and bypass such flags.
Of course, this is absolutely silly and beyond absurd, for bad actors share information of forums, can deduce fairly easily, and even have help from people on staff.
Such actors typically know about detection and flagging methods within days of implementation. There's literally zero benefit to secrecy. None. Security through obscurity can be a beneficial additional layer, but it simply never helps here.
We really should pass a law requiring full disclosure of the precise method of banning. I can even see a 'trial' period, where accounts activated (and used!) for 3 months receive this benefit, but new accounts, or new + dormant accounts do not.
This should likely be coupled with mandated full refunds of phones or computers, as an example.
Note that this isn't a 'free' account we're talking about here. An Apple account, or a Google account is required to use an iphone or pixel in its default config, and all the features it entails. These accounts aren't free, they're part of purchase cost, and core-required.
(Even if it's a, for example, Samsung phone? It comes pre-installed, with uninstallable Google Play cruft, as part of an agreement with Samsung. Same conditions need apply here)
For the average person, including buying apps, this simply isn't a reality.
And Google will now be throwing up massive "OMG! You're going to install an app that isn't from the Play Store?!" warnings to anyone that tries, including requiring some degree of technical skill to do so.
You stated I was wrong. I am, and was not. This is because I have contextually stated that I am referring to the average person's reality.
I was specific in this point, because yes aosp exists. If you want to discuss conditions outside of those I mentioned, that does not make me wrong.
Instead, that means you are discussing something else.
Aosp existing does not mean the average person may or even can use it. This matters, for consumer protection is aimed at the 99.9%.. not 0.1%.
One sad example, many banking apps won't work without firebase and google play. You cannot, as an average user, even find such apps without the Play store.
A play account, or apple account has serious gatekeeping ramifications for the average person.
Not for long. Android phones (with Google Play Services) will soon require some degree of authentication to sideload applications, once that happens then those phones will only have the barest of features available without a Google account.
If you want to truly save your photos, make backups of the locals and put it in your safe deposit box at the bank. Or alternatively, at a trusted friend/relative's house.
Even doing this yearly can save the immense sadness of lost memories. And of course, this works for emails, and everything else.
If you encrypt it, make sure you use a method not tied to any external service, or the machine you're on. I don't use Apple, yet I suspect that an encrypted external backup might be tied to your Apple ID, or some such, because that's how the world flies today.
Yeah, the plan would be external disk -> offsite storage.
I wouldn't bother to encrypt, it's just family photos and I wouldn't want to complicate restores. Especially if it was my wife who eventually needed to use it.
I'm not sure why, but every corporate picture I've seen of someone, in this context, is standing in front of a hedge. Seems to be a California thing?
(Where I live, we only have leaves on hedges 6 months of the year)
reply