This is limitation around selling software/product not consulting, per bottom of post:
"...if your product is an application that uses such a module to perform select functions, you can use it freely and there are no restrictions on selling your product. However, if what you sell is basically the functionality of the module packaged as a cloud service or on-prem software, Commons Clause does not allow it."
Consulting is specially called out in the actual license as a no-no: "including without limitation fees for hosting or consulting/ support services related to the Software"
Consulting is explicitly called out as prohibited in their "Commons Clause":
> For purposes of the foregoing, “Sell” means practicing any or all of the rights granted to you under the License to provide to third parties, for a fee or other consideration (including without limitation fees for hosting or consulting/ support services related to the Software), a product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software.
"...the site's administrators didn't keep this data for DisruptJ20.org, but DreamHost did...
DreamHost keeps server logs in order to manage the sites of its 400,000-plus customers and identify issues like Distributed Denial of Service attacks.
"We only retain those logs for a very brief time," Dunst wrote. "The DOJ served us with a preservation notice immediately after the inauguration, which is why we still have access to that data in this case."
I have that enabled and the setting states that ~70MB have been downloaded in this way, but I don't know over which period and it also never does "feel" like it's working.
Seems to have gotten flagged off the front page fairly quickly.
(Actually a lot of stuff seems to do that lately - I find myself doing a daily check of the second page, just to see which big stories got flagged down before I saw them.)
This has been extensively reported in variety of media.
Origin comes from this 2016 coverage [1]:
In a Facebook proxy statement published by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on Thursday, the company paved the way for Zuckerberg to one day take a "voluntary" leave from his post as CEO and serve "in a government position or office."
Followed by his New Year Resolution [2] and state of affairs in the country, the public started pressing that narrative which Mark replied to [3]
From the outside it looks like a superb deal, but issues are in the details. Most notably, the Museum is being proposed on PUBLIC land and thus the conflict in meeting the requirements.
As quoted in the article from Presidio Trust board member:
“If it’s your land, you can do pretty much what you want,” Bechtle says. “But with public land, there is just a higher level of scrutiny.”
The trust developed design guidelines for the site. The building could be no higher than 45 feet; as for looks, the trust didn’t want a building that replicated an old-fashioned architectural style...
...in short Lucas proposal didn't meet the guidelines and he didn't want to compromise.
Personally, I think the museum is a fantastic deal and any city would be blessed with the gift -- still hoping SF & Lucas find a mutual agreement (one of which not be exclusive to Lucas items/curation).
I don't have a whole lot of respect for guidelines like the building being no higher than 45 feet - well I don't mind it as a guideline but as a hard limit it's a kind of bullshit constraint. You couldn't accuse his proposal of looking like old-fashioned architecture so I presume they're fighting over the former issue.
But honestly. I think constraints like that are just a bargaining chip in San Francisco's social power game, where Lucas has the money and the political support but not the elite social pedigree of San Francisco's philanthropic set (who in turn suffer an inferiority complex relative to their competitors on the east coast): http://www.greenwichtime.com/bayarea/place/article/Major-pla...
Let's not forget that right now the site is occupied by a sportswear outlet and 20 years ago was little better than a parking lot. Tech billionaires show more interest in space, hospitals, and vehicles (perhaps because those fields offer quantifiable metrics of success) so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for someone to come along with a check & collection for a more obviously highbrow museum in a city that's already amply supplied with such options.
That's fair enough. On the other hand, I never really understood the objections in Chicago.
Yes, Lucas wants to create a monument. Building it in the middle of nowhere where no one will visit doesn't serve that purpose, but then it doesn't really serve the public interest either. I do hope that some reasonable accommodation can be arrived at in a location that will give many people access to the art.
If it's worth visiting, people will go even if it is in the middle of nowhere. Lots of places in the middle of nowhere off highways get visitors--think of outlet malls and theme parks. If it's filled with Star Wars stuff, those fans will trek out to see it. Lucas's issue is that he wants to build a monument to himself in a prominent place. This isn't about making his art available. It's about him building an edifice to glorify himself.
Some folks have to do great things to get monuments built (Lincoln). Others donate money and let others have a say in what edifice gets built (Smithson, Carnegie, Mellon). Still others build their own edifices but buy the land on the open market (Trump, the Sears Tower). Lucas wants to build his own edifice on prominent public land, all while retaining complete control for himself. That's his problem.
It's not evident what's new, but this initiative was announced a year ago, here's the article: "Amazon Takes On Product Hunt, Shopify With Launchpad, An All-In-One Marketing And Sales Portal" [1]
It's for just this sort of reason that I took my DSP plugin business 'Airwindows.com' to a Patreon-only model when my 'shopify' (Kagi) went bust recently.
It's getting pretty weird out there. This is very much about obliterating things like Shopify: helping startups is strictly tangential and/or temporary. It's all about the strategic moves and trying to prevent other players in the sector from growing. If they don't grow, they die, so seizing control is worth anything.
Strange they didn't make this announcement on their official blog, going to their site one would think nothing happened.
Saddest part, no one cares. An hour plus since the news and hardly anybody is talking about it on Twitter including any reaction to their tweet. For how much they fought in this transportation movement, they're going out with a whimper.
Honestly would anybody really care that much if Uber shut down? The users and drivers would just move to Lyft or some other service. This isn't Facebook that has a bunch of your life's history.
Uber is only a household name for younger people in cities. I just recently had to explain to my mother what uber was because she had never heard of it. For people over 50 living in suburbs they never hear about all this companies that many people on here think are huge companies that have worldwide recognition.
You cant say something is a household name until more than 50% of middle aged people can tell you what a company does just by mentioning their name
Maybe your folks don't watch as much broadcast television as you'd imagine. My parents (over 50) know what Uber is given
- The amount of name drops the service gets on late night TV (Conan, SNL)
- The news it generates (medallions, the france protests)
- The viral facebook posts that go around when someone spends $300+ on an uber ride to go home.
Despite the fact they live in a suburb.
In any case, if we used your stringent definition of "household name", I doubt companies like Samsung, Sony or Twitter would fit the bill despite having massive consumer reach (and marketing spends).
My 60-something Australian mother knew what Uber was before we even summoned one, here in Costa Rica where their arrival was very publicly contentious.
And in fewer cities/regions in the US, at that. Though, granted, the sudden and mysterious hypothetical death of Uber would probably motivate Lyft to ramp up in all those other markets, too.
I agree that it's important to unplug every once in a while, but for some, programming is like reading. As an analogy consider a lawyer reading legal documents all day at work and going back home and reading a novel, it's exactly the same for me, working on my own projects is exciting and enjoyable.
"...if your product is an application that uses such a module to perform select functions, you can use it freely and there are no restrictions on selling your product. However, if what you sell is basically the functionality of the module packaged as a cloud service or on-prem software, Commons Clause does not allow it."