There is a reason that the USA nonprofit RISC-V Foundation stood down and transferred all IP to the newer Switzerland incorporated RISC-V International.

"But not nearly as interesting as the assorted women parts I have archived in my basement freezer," he continued.

Considering how forceful and near-universal condemnation from women and women's groups in and out of tech has been to the memo, it is extremely difficult to believe that this Ask Slashdot was submitted in good faith. Particularly in light of the extreme ease of finding high-profile responses. Here is a (small) sample from a simple google search:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2Fthe-big-id...
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vox.com%2Ffirst-pers...
http://fortune.com/2017/08/09/...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpatch.com%2Fcalifornia%2Fm...

If you really are that out of the loop, that should inform you pretty well. If you're begging the question, then the quantity of vile reactions in these comments have likely confirmed that it was worth it. I hope it is the former.

But you are clearly interested enough to comment on it.

This is 100% true. The contents of the annotations are summaries of cases written by someone other than the court (sometimes the court's staff but most often by an indexing service like Lexis), and aren't actually law. Their sole purpose is to identify to attorneys and judges which cases stand for which principles. They are never even a complete statement of the law of that case, since they are usually a short paragraph long and only mention one of many issues the court dealt with. Half the time, the case identified by an annotation isn't even useful to the project, but they are always a good starting point.

Is this the same W3C that is responsible for HTML standards and reminding me how bad I am at proper syntax?

So what he's saying is that we should all grab our botnets and assault Al Gore (the king of the internet), forcing him to give rights to those of us who own servers?

. . . I'm OK with this.

I guess that by blessing CentOS, more companies will start offering paid CentOS support. This has the benefit of marginalizing Oracle Linux and pushing back against Ubuntu server marketshare growth.

I guess that by blessing CentOS, it creates much less room for Oracle to position Oracle Linux as a competitor to RHEL. And I do agree with other people that have said the lateness of CentOS created space for companies that sell Ubuntu server support to thrive. Better to have Oracle support companies catch some scraps than Ubuntu to each their lunch.

The clause prevents you from installing a bunch of CentOS servers, paying for one RHEL license and then updating the CentOS with the RHEL repository RPMs (or private repository mirror). You're more than welcome to pay for a RHEL license for one server and update it with the RHEL repository RPMs and then have a farm of CentOS that you update with the CentOS repository RPMs. Other things that are OK: paying for one RHEL to have access to the Red Hat knowledge base and using that information to support your CentOS installs (with CentOS RPMs).

They don't claim owership of the compiled RPMs, but they do only distribute them to people who pay for a support contract. And it's well within their rights to terminate a support contract if a compiled RPM is redistributed to someone who isn't a customer.

To understand this, you have to understand the relationship Red Hat Enterprise Linux has with recompile derivatives. While the compiled RPMs for RHEL cost money and are not redistributable without a license, the source RPMs are nearly all open source. Anyone with a RHEL license can download the RHEL SRPMs and do a recompile. This was great for people who want a RHEL-alike without paying for licenses and CentOS (and then Scientific Linux) came into existence. Red Hat was pleased with this because it gave a cheap way for enterprise customers to try RHEL and eventually become customers who pay for licenses/support.

Then came Oracle Linux who did the exact same thing as CentOS and Scientific Linux, but started charging for licenses and support outside of Red Hat's control. Red Hat wasn't pleased so they started packaging their SRPMs so instead of them containing upstream tarball with RH patch files, they would ship tarballs only or mega huge patch files without comments pointing to the relevent Red Hat bugzilla bug. This made it harder for Oracle to provide support to their customers, but it also had the effect of causing CentOS to get delayed by a good amount every new RHEL release.

Without a quick turnaround on CentOS releases that match RHEL releases, it threatened to kill their "the first one is free" business model. And it probably caused some customers to switch to cheaper Oracle value-added distributors. So Red Hat's only remaining move is to make a relationship with CentOS official. Presumably most of the relationship with be done in private to keep Oracle from gaining an advantage.

systemd already has systemd-nspawn, but it's not touted as a secure container.

A markholder attempting to avoid dilution/abandonment only has an obligation to combat infringement of their mark. Legitimate uses of the mark, including the fair use associated with criticism in this case, do not affect the markholder's rights in any way.