Works already fine for cities like Paris, Berlin, Copenhagen and so on. Driving a ptivate car for transportation is for max comfort, not for need.
And also, heat waves are catastrophic emergencies which kill thousands of people. Wishes for mere comfort cannot have priority then.
Reasonable, few exceptions for really important things - I have no problem with that. But getting some bread rolls from a shop 1 kilometer away? Leave your Benz. Take the bike.
So who’s paying for the lost wages and companies’ income?
I’d suggest fossil oil and gas companies. The causal link was clearly shown by science, and everyone is liable for damages he or she causes. Including companies. Why should it be different this time?
Elect politicians which do build them.
That trick works here, too.
Also: The global market prices for oil and has are heavily influenced by the US. If their reserves run dry, this affects prices here - massively.
You need to see it more positively. What we are experiencing is a system that elegantly combines the shortcimings of capitalism with the disadvantages of communism!
This time, he might be correct.
We also need policies that ban all ICE cars - including Diesel cars - except emergency vehicles during and just before heat waves. They cause photochemical smog, which contains ozone, a highly toxic gas which in heat waves is deadly for people with pulmonary problems.
About Phoenix:
Landlords are required by law to maintain a safe indoor temperature (28C/82F or lower), and companies that contract with the city must implement heat safety plans to keep workers healthy and comfortable.
We must have that law in Europe. Now.
There is also Knoppix, designed for rescue purposes.
Generally, what we have in the EU is strict liability for commercial products, but not for things like gifts or FOSS software developed in a non-commercial manner. Except when damages are caused on purpose or because of gross negligence.
Some examples (German law, which is quite strict about personal liability):
You cause an accident -> you are liable.
Your small kid causes an accident -> you are liable.
Your unleashed dog runs over the street, causes a truck to steer into a shop -> you are liable.
Your car does not work because of improper maintenance, and causes an accident -> you are liable.
Your dishwasher floods the flat below you with water while you are away -> you are liable.
Your car’s assisted braking system goes out of control because of defective software delivered by the manufacturer -> the manufacturer is liable.
You gift somebody a car with a minor defect which you are not aware of, he has an accident -> no liability for you.
You knowingly gift somebody a car with defective brakes, without telling him, he has an accident -> you are liable.
Your physician uses some X-Ray device software which has a catastrophic bug and causes that you have radioactive burns all over your body -> the manufacturer of the software is liable.
(and here is where EU law probably differs form US law: In the US, software vendors can and do disclaim all liability. THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE IN THE EU, and thus such a contractual clause is probably invalid in its entirety, while leaving the contract valid. (And that is why you should NOT write your own licenses.))
What is intereesting os that with the Cyber Resiliency Act (EU CRA), the EU has now added decent security to the legal expectations which commercial manufacturers of software or mechatronic systems are liable for.
It is generally not a good idea to write an own license. Because it is complex legal stuff.
Also, when using licenses, one should check whether the interactions with other licenses are as intended. Some licenses are compatible in a two-way manner, some only in one way, some not at all. The GNU project has a page for that.
To clarify any confusion: I posted this, but this is not my blog article; it is from a different person.
Well, I already wrote that copyleft licenses get hate from corporations…
Personally, I also think that much of the hate which one would find e.g. on reddit or the orange site against copyleft licenses in general, and the GPL specifically was probably astroturfing from corporations for which it was just an obstacle to appropiate more unpaid volunteer work for the commons for free.
For the Linux kernel - and for GNU/Linux as an OS - the GPL was never a problem. On the contrary: Without it, the kernel would not be what it is (the historic Torvalds - Tanenbaum debate shows the reasons quite clearly).
The same is true, by the way for the GNU Guix project: Very few arguments against it are logical or really hold water. It is, for example, perfectly possile to publish a Guix channel for a commercial game or proprietary software on ones own web site - just as you can do with a docker image. And the way Guix takes care of dependencies and updates makes it probably the easiest way to do such. Because you can use Guix as a package manager on most distros - I use it both on Debian and Arch - I find it more reasonable than using snaps, docker, or flatpaks.
The reason for the hate is likely something else: That you can’t commercialise and embrace the whole, source-based ecosystem. And also, in a primarily source-based system, you have less control over other peoples computers: You can still offer binary packages similar to Ubuntu ppas, but you will need to explain to people why you want them to install binary stuff from you, which can take control of their computer. Do you have any experience with a relationship where one side wanted complete control and it turned out good for you?
For example, you also can’t use the Guix infrastructure (e.g. their mailing list or download server) to promote or advertise commercial, non-free stuff.
But expecting or demanding to be able to do that is just ridiculous: Nobody expects from Microsoft or Apple that they feel obliged to promote or market Adobe or Oracle products. Alone the idea that companies could demand that shows how entitled the corporations behave in respect to free software.
So, your argument is merely that the point he blogs about does not matter? Or do you somehow not want people to discuss it? Why?
Be ready to supply your fingerprints using Microsoft Authenticator app and your free source access subscription for only 49 USD per month! /s
Everybody can build whatever they want.
I do not see how that adresses his core argument - that permissive licenses enabled things we do not want and which subvert individual and collective freedoms.
More to the point, the GPL and its sisters are designed to grant rights to people.
While the “everybody” in your sentence above includes corporations like Microsoft, Facebook and Anthropic which do very unfree things with open source tools.
This is not the same intent.
Personally, I also think that much of the hate which one would find e.g. on reddit or the orange site against copyleft licenses in general, and the GPL specifically was probably astroturfing from corporations for which it was just an obstacle to appropiate more unpaid volunteer work for the commons for free.
For the Linux kernel - and for GNU/Linux as an OS - the GPL was never a problem. On the contrary: Without it, the kernel would not be what it is (the historic Torvalds - Tabenbaum debate shows the reasons quite clearly).
The same is true, by the way for the GNU Guix project: Very few arguments against it are logical or really hold water. It is, for example, perfectly possile to publish a Guix channel for a commercial game or proprietary software on ones own web site - just as you can do with a docker image. And the way Guix takes care of dependencies and updates makes it probably the easiest way to do such. Because you can use Guix as a package manager on most distros - I use it on Debian - I find it more reasonable than using snaps, docker, or flatpaks.
The reason for the hate is likely something else: That you can’t commercialise and embrace the whole, source-based ecosystem.
For example, you can’t use the Guix infrastructure to promote or advertise commercial, non+free stuff. But expecting or demanding to be able to do that is just ridiculous: Nobody expects from Microsoft or Apple that they feel obliged to promote or market Adobe or Oracle products. Alone the idea that companies could demand that shows how entitled the corporations behave in respect to free software.
Personally, I also think that much of the hate which one would find e.g. on reddit or the orange site against copyleft licenses in general, and the GPL specifically was probably astroturfing from corporations for which it was just an obstacle to appropiate more unpaid volunteer work for the commons for free.
For the Linux kernel - and for GNU/Linux as an OS - the GPL was never a problem. On the contrary: Without it, the kernel would not be what it is (the historic Torvalds - Tanenbaum debate shows the reasons quite clearly).
The same is true, by the way for the GNU Guix project: Very few arguments against it are logical or really hold water. It is, for example, perfectly possile to publish a Guix channel for a commercial game or proprietary software on ones own web site - just as you can do with a docker image. And the way Guix takes care of dependencies and updates makes it probably the easiest way to do such. Because you can use Guix as a package manager on most distros - I use it both on Debian and Arch - I find it more reasonable than using snaps, docker, or flatpaks.
The reason for the hate is likely something else: That you can’t commercialise and embrace the whole, source-based ecosystem.
For example, you can’t use the Guix infrastructure (e.g. their mailing list or download server) to promote or advertise commercial, non-free stuff. But expecting or demanding to be able to do that is just ridiculous: Nobody expects from Microsoft or Apple that they feel obliged to promote or market Adobe or Oracle products. Alone the idea that companies could demand that shows how entitled the corporations behave in respect to free software.
No, like the OP The Guardian article, I was talking about larger cities which have decent public transport. They are also hotter than their surroundings which makes relief more important.
Though specifically ozone is also problem in suburbia; it is formed there during the day by photochemical smog, but decomposes way slower than in the direct city areas.