Dremor

Pas mal, hein? C'est français.

Personally, I wouldn't call it "viral" if it does not propagate to other files. It may create a confusion.
On the other hand, I don't think there is an agreed upon terminology to describe it, so if my explanation help someone better understand the concept, I'm all good.

I think you misunderstood what "viral" mean in that context.

Under GPL :

If a file , under GPL, is added to a project, the whole project becomes dual licensed under the original licence plus GPL, which propagate to the whole project, like a virus.

Under MPL :

If a file, under MPL is added to a project, the project do not become MPL, only the added part is. Said project cannot change the MPL licensed part to another licence, but still can build anything it wish using it.

Globally, a GPL licensed project protects the user more, but also prevent the devs from doing a lot of thing, which MPL does not.

In the end, this is the devs freedom to chose which licence they wish to publish their code under, not ours.

Unfortunately it won't be consumer grade memory, so don't get your hope up.

Mod Note : T'was a nice april fool matey !

The only one that wouldn't would be SUSE. Headquarters in Luxembourg, privately owned by a Swedish investment firm.

Tales of Symphonia, GameCube.

That field is here to allow the support of it, not to make it required everywhere.

Seatbelts isn't required everywhere, but car maker won't make two version of a car, one that support seatbelts, and one that doesn't. They will make one model, with the required attach points to install a seatbelt, and install an actual seatbelt only on cars that goes somewhere where it is mandatory.

Here we are in a similar situation. That filed is here to make of possible for OS to support that law, but it doesn't mean we'll all have to conform to that law unless you live in a country that have said law.

An open source software is, by law, the maintainer's (which can be an individual, or a group of persons) property. It is said maintainer who has the right to grant you any kind of license over what he owns.

In the case of an open-source project, that license is very permissive, true, but if you take the time to read any of those, you will always see :

• A provision indicating that the owners grants that licence within the limits of the applicable laws
• Sometimes a provision indicating under which juridiction said license is granted. If not, the user local laws are the ones used.

Source : the fucking law and the fucking licenses. And my friend, which happens to be a lawyer specialized in intellectual property laws.

Open-sourcing a software doesn't make it magically immune to laws.

It's a fucking field. Why is everyone loosing his mind over it? It's not like it is required, nor will it prevent you to do anything if you put data in (except not being able to change it later).

If you have to complain, complain about the law, not poor guy that has to add it, by law.

🤣