Japan’s cybersecurity minister admitted a couple of years ago that he had never used a computer in his life.

Then he has never been the victim of a cyber-attack!

I think that a new Zelda is years away, but the Switch’s successor will come out next year or early 2025 at the latest.

I do expect Mario Kart 9 and a new 3D Mario at launch.

I think they’ll release a Tears of the Kingdom “Deluxe” a few months later (similar to what they did with Mario Kart 8 on the Switch). Enough people want a higher-res TotK that it’s worth making, but banking on an upscaled port as a launch title isn’t something they’d do.

There was also a leak about a year ago that claimed that this game was done, playtesting results were awful, and they were trying to figure out what to do with it.

When they silently dropped a trailer 2 weeks before release and a few days before a Nintendo Direct, I was convinced the leak was true, and that this would be a disaster.

“Okay” reviews are a huge surprise.

The weird thing is that it seems late for Nintendo to still be working on R&D for the Switch 2. This is probably less than a year from announcement. At this point, I would expect them to be hammering out agreements with suppliers, so the hardware should be more-or-less done.

Then again, I have no idea what the timeline is like for console development.

Assuming any of this is legit:

Is it possible that the “Switch 2” has a hybrid version like the Switch, a handheld version like the Switch Lite, and a home console version? (Or even just hybrid and home console versions, with a handheld to come later?)

These could all run the same software with very similar hardware, but the home console would either be cheaper or offer higher resolutions and/or framerates than the docked hybrid console.

Customers might get confused, but this is arguably more straightforward than the current lineup.

The downside is that developers would need to handle 3 different configurations (handheld, docked, and home).

The fear is that Meta is making the classic tech monopolist move: embrace, extend, extinguish.

Some of the changes in GPLv3 seem to address this type of behavior. There might be some narrow gaps that Red Hat is taking advantage of, but the folks at GNU at least made things harder.

Got it.

I don’t see how that could comply with the terms of the GPL.

They might also be banking on GPLv3 contributors being unable/unwilling to take them to court. The Linux kernel is GPLv2, and its contributors are probably more of a legal threat than anything else in RHEL.

Frankly, I’m more concerned about the precedent this sets for the GPL.

If Red Hat can do this, then there’s nothing (legally) preventing every other megacorp from ending public contributions to Linux and other GPL projects, forking them, and releasing them under restrictive contractual terms.

Granted, not everyone would take their code private. Microsoft and Apple make some contributions to BSD/MIT/etc. licensed software even though they are not required to. However, I think we’d miss out on quite a lot of FOSS development.

What stops one person with a free account from mirroring the source?

It’s also against the spirit of the GPL if not the letter. Red Hat isn’t just required to release source code to its customers upon request; that source code comes with GPL rights and restrictions attached (including the right to distribute).

Is it legal for Red Hat to require customers to waive their GPL rights? I don’t think it should be, but I don’t think courts are particularly friendly to copyleft holders.