This is definitely wrong. For example, I know Canada has reactors under construction: https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1002543/ontario-breaks-ground-on-world-leading-small-modular-reactor

I completely agree with what you said. It’s been years since I bought any games and yet my experience just gets better and better on Steam, especially as a Linux user.

For anyone who doesn’t get this comment https://youtu.be/Q-25c8Rsobw

Great comparison, a dialect used by millions of people to a dead language. It really shows how much you care about the people who speak that dialect…

Ah, see I also think the US system is messed up, but for the opposite reason. The US is one of the few places in the world with elected judges, and most of the rest are political appointments. In the rest of the world, there are non-partisan process to select qualified judges. Political appointments for administrative positions are just bad and contributes to the polarization we see today. With elections, I don’t think the majority of voters are actually researching and assessing these down-ballot races, but just voting along party lines. This means, instead of a (TBF, potentially flawed) non-partisan process, you just have the parties selecting judges, giving political parties even more power.

I’m curious how you’re excited for these judicial reform. IMHO, elected judges are a horrible idea.

Israel has not ratified the Rome Statute, so they’re in a very different circumstance than Peru.

It’s been a decade.

Since the Invasion of Crimea, NATO has been placing troops near its boarders with Russia, especially in the Baltics.

It’s literally in the article:

…the U.S. announced on May 28 that it had suspended operations so repairs could be made.

The United Nations said on Friday it had still not resumed transportation of aid from the pier to U.N. World Food Programme warehouses.

I’m not too familiar with historic international law, but most of the ones in modern use are only decades old. So, while the invasion of Hawaii may be immoral and may have broken international norms, I’m not sure if it’s consider to have broken “International Law”.

Indeed, but as I’ve been saying in other comments, that doesn’t mean the license will be FOSS. The press release is vague, and I think that’s likely to be intentional ambiguity.

Note that it speaks of the “official version” in the next sentence, which seems to me like there will be inofficial versions which requires a more permissive license

It doesn’t necessarily require a permissive license. For example, Winamp could be willing to license the code for non-official versions or for integration into other projects, but at a fee and with limitations set by Winamp. As I’ve said in other comments, the press release is vague, and I think that’s likely to be intentional ambiguity.

The article’s text said, “Winamp will remain the owner of the software.” That does not, in fact, preclude giving it a FOSS license, nor does retaining a related trademark. GP was correct. They can make it FOSS and keep the trademark and copyright. I don’t see any reason to think it unlikely.

It’s possible. However, at no point in the post is that discussed, so it’s pretty wild speculation.

Forking someone’s copyrighted work does not change ownership of the rights in any jurisdiction that I know of. If you meant “ownership” in a difference sense, like maybe control over a derivative project’s direction, then I think choosing a different word would have made your meaning more clear.

AFAIK, it doesn’t “change” ownership, but it creates a new property with new ownership. That new ownership may be bound by he terms of the original license, but the original owner has no further control.

The open-source licenses that I’ve used don’t require surrendering copyright.

The creator doesn’t “surrender” their copyright, but someone can fork it and then have ownership of their version. “Winamp will remain the owner of the software” indicates you won’t have ownership of a fork.

Again, it doesn’t clearly state whether it will be “FOSS” or “Source Available”, but if they were planning to go FOSS, you’d expect them to say something to make that clear. Leaving it vague seems like a strategy to get attention while not actually lying.

It also doesn’t include any wording that would indicate it’s FOSS. It doesn’t say anything about being able to fork, instead using phrases like, “participate in its development”, “allowing its users to contribute directly to improving the product”, and “will benefit from thousands of developers’ experience and creativity”.

Sure, but that’s unlikely, given the wording. “Owner of the software” is fairly clear and trademark and software are very different.

The release doesn’t say it’s going FOSS. It doesn’t specify, but it hints that it’ll be “Source Available”. Stuff like:

Winamp will remain the owner of the software and will decide on the innovations made in the official version.

What does this have to do with FOSS?

…by shooting a dog?