It’s true you will never get rid of all of it but, just like crime, basic enforcement is a deterrence. They know who’s buying, they know where they’re shipped, they have a fair idea if they’re returned. Just requiring reviews to be from purchasers after they’ve received the product, removing positive reviews for returns without replacement (or flagging them as returned), and a few other steps would make fake reviews either very expensive or very expensive for the results.

The fact is, Amazon makes most of their money on AWS, and I don’t think they care to put in the real effort to make their marketplace trustworthy again. Without that, it will continue its downward spiral.

He may have honored his parents. He looks like mommy and acts like daddy.

I have better things to do, that’s why I’m here.

You’re loony!

This feel like the whole “chefs are insulted if you order well done steak” thing. I get the sentiment, and you probably can’t show the limits of your skill with a well done steak, but the customer isn’t going to enjoy it more if you give them what they don’t want.

Strawberries? White wine?

You specifically said you chose the MIT license because you wanted to use it in commercial projects. That’s business, no matter how small. As the owner of the property, you could have used any and all licenses available to you. Also, if you wanted to require users of your code to attribute or notify you, you could have. If you want to be disappointed in their behavior that’s perfectly fine, too. Corporations usually disappoint if you have any altruistic expectations of them.

Won’t keep fake reviews off their platform. It’s not a matter of ability, but of will.

Here’s the core issue. The developer didn’t know his rights, and made a mistake. I’m not criticizing, people make a career dealing with crap like this. But if you want to make a business out of something, it’s worth it to do some research or talk to a lawyer. I believe the MIT license has its place but, from what the OP said, this isn’t it.

At that point you’re kind of arguing that there was only one World War with a 20-year armistice. I can see what they mean, and certainly tensions are escalating, but we’ve still made a concerted effort to not drag more people in while limiting the expansion of Russia’s territory.

In 5 or 10 years we will be talking about how we avoided the Russia-Ukraine conflict expanding into another world war or we will be talking about how these were the first stages of that conflict.

It’s sort of a flawed opinion. If you’re never charging at home and doing a lot of driving, a hybrid won’t make much difference and might cost more. If you’re conscientious about charging when you can and mostly drive within range of your battery’s capacity, it can be almost as effective as full electric. Stats indicate most PHEV owners use the the same way you would use an ICE, car, which is more expensive and a bit of a waste.

I’m not sure this is the big gotcha you think it is. To serve a large population in a big relatively small area, you can easily achieve your goals with fewer, larger locations. This will allow a greater selection per location, which reduces the odds you will have to wait for the desired product to be shipped in. Moreover, land isn’t cheap in New York, whereas it may well be in smaller locales in England. Either way, a reasonable metric is cost per capita to provide services for a region, and England is only about 2/3 as expensive as New York. I suspect the cost of living is higher in New York than England, and it will certainly have an impact of the relative budgets of the two organizations. And we haven’t talked about the climate control requirements in England vs. New York because, frankly, I’m not too clear about the relative climate differences to say whether that’s a significant issue in the first place.

I think you mean the 2010 G20 summit. The 2011 summit was in Cannes.

Even the RPi, which has major Linux support has a blob for its graphics driver (at least the last time I checked). And I wouldn’t exactly say Broadcom is falling over themselves to support Linux. Qualcomm, less so.

Related to that, and a line that just stuck with me: A boat is a hole in the water that you pour money into.

I’ll remember this whenever someone says you’ll run out of things to do when you retire.

There is nothing stopping a GPL project using MIT-licensed code except for lack of desire to do the work. They are one-way compatible.

It really depends. If the contract gives ownership of the work created to the purchaser, he has no rights to it whatsoever. Moreover, trying to do a clean room implementation of your own code is almost impossible without help. A permissive license would give the purchaser unlimited use of the product, including resale while still allowing the producer unlimited use, as well. If the contract is written correctly, the producer might even retain ownership, with the right to use different licenses, while the purchaser would have few or no restrictions.

I’ll throw my opinions in here.

If you’re publishing a standard or a reference application, a permissive license makes sense. What better way to guarantee compatibility than being able to use the reference code in your product. This is what happened with the TCP/IP stack, and it was used in its original form in Windows for years.

If you’re making something that you want to build a community around, something more akin to the GPL may be more aligned with your goals. The nice part is, you can include MIT licensed projects as part of your GPL project. This means there is nothing stopping you from building your standard with a MIT license while building your community-driven application using GPL, maximizing the reach of your standard while reducing the risk to your community.

Note that either option opens you to EEE (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish), the GPL option just takes an extra step (clean room implementation of a published standard).

Ideas aren’t real, either, and they’ve hurt a lot of people.