But also, it’s possible OP had COVID back in 2021 or some such and just still hasn’t gotten their sense of taste back. You should look into “long covid” if you didn’t know COVID could cause symptoms (sometimes debilitating symptoms) for years after the initial infection.
Thoughts about the future are experiences had in the present. Be mindful of the present feelings of thinking about the future. Also, practice meditation.
Sure it would be nice if we coud use more modern elements of Mickey. But I don’t agree that this isn’t a big deal.
Before 2019, one couldn’t have blamed us for expecting nothing to ever pass into the public domain again. Steamboat Willie would have passed into the public domain in 1955 had 13 distinct acts of Congress (prompted by lobbiests from, among others, Disney) between the years 1976 and 1998 not extended copyright each time Steamboat Willie came close to entering the public domain. The last one in 1998, the “Sonny Bono” Copyright Term Extension Act was called by its detractors at the time the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act.” Basically Mickey Mouse and Steamboat Willie are probably the most emblematic works in any conversation of copyright run amok. So, if nothing else, the copyright expiring on Steamboat Willie is a hugely symbolic occurrence.
But also, it’s not as if people aren’t using Mickey in works already. I’ve seen several web comics just here on Lemmy. And there’s a video game in the works.
I’d love to see WB do something – anything – with the Steamboat Willie version of Mickey Mouse.
And finally, does Steamboat Willie Mickey really look that different from more modern Mickey renditions? The eyes are probably the biggest difference. But also realize that now that Steamboat Willie (and at least one other early Mickey Mouse animation) is in the public domain, there’s room for other modern-looking reimaginings of Mickey Mouse that might differ from the modern Disney Mickey Mouse.
I foresaw the trademark thing and so have many others. But that doesn’t restrict as much as the recently-expired copyright does. Mostly the continuing trademark means that one can’t use the Steamboat Willie Mickey Mouse in a way that misleads people that your own work is by Disney.
About the thing about Disney claiming that because they used Steamboat Willie Mickey in more recent woks they can still claim copyright protections on elements of Mickey Mouse that were a thing in Steamboat Willie, I really don’t think copyright works like that.
All that said, Disney has a rabid legal team and lots of experience at lobbying congress. Who knows what they’re capable of. It’s possible they’d try to pull some major fast one and make copyright and/or trademark work differently than they do today.
This talk says “[Free Software] is generally everywhere and a lot of these smart devices that you buy off the shelf most likely is running some sort of free software but most people would never know that. Generally it’s not indicated anywhere that it’s running any type of free software. There’s no written offer for sources which is sadly the most popular… the written offer for source code seems to be the most popular way that they go about distributing the software but generally they don’t follow up with it or what they distribute is not really that.”
This article mentions that “I’ve been on a mission in recent months to establish just how common and mundane GPL violations are. Since 21 August 2009, I’ve been finding one new GPL violating company per day (on average) and I am still on target to find one per day for 365 days straight.”
I’ve got a robot vacuum cleaner that runs the Linux kernel and Busybox but came with no written offer for source code. (Per the article above, I’ll refrain from naming and shaming the company.) I might go look at the documents that came with my smart phone a little later and see if I can find any written offers for source.
I need to look into the Best Buy case you’re referencing.
But I doubt think you’re right that violation of the terms of the GPL is such a rare thing. Aside from people who just don’t use technology much at all, I’d imagine most folks have multiple devices sold in ways that violated the GPL and with no plans for GPL compliance (and no knowledge that they needed a plan for GPL compliance.)
Ok, yeah. I think I misinterpreted the bit of your post that I quoted.
About Google, it’s not necessarily Google who manufactured your phone. It is if you have a Pixel, but it might be Samsung or LG or ZTE phone or whatever. And it’s not necessarily them who sold you your phone. It might be T-Mobile or Mint Mobile or AT&T. Whoever conveyed GPL’d code in object form (as the GPL puts it “embodied in, a physical product”) has the responsibility of ensuring you can get from them the source of all GPL’d code on your device. Including all derivative works and modifications.
Derivative works includes kernel modules. Which includes device drivers for, say, 5G modems and fingerprint readers. And those are the kinds of things (aside maybe from tivoization) that are the biggest hurtles for making a fully free firmware for a given device.
So, yes, I mean the kernel and derivative works of the kernel like drivers. And of course anything else on the device that is GPL’d.
Plus, the GPL also includes what is necessary to compile and install GPL’d code as part of the source code. Some of the implications are pretty cool. See this article by Bradley Kuhn of the Software Freedom Conservancy for more info.
I think if companies did comply with all this, FOSS could benefit ordinary users who don’t even know what FOSS is a lot more than it does now.