I remember the case of books used for training, where the court found training to be fair use, but the material has to be legally obtained (=Bought instead of pirated the books).
I think you nailed it here. What you are "licensing" with your license is copyright. But if training is fair use, copyright doesn't apply, so there is no need for a license.
It can also be 3 people, as one person can be a father and a son at the same time. If you allow non-mentioned people to be included in the attribute (i.e. the sons of the fathers are not part of the 2) it could also be 2 people, as long as they are fathers.
That's interesting as my first thought reading the comments was "this problem seems very similar to many students writing papers just finding citations that sound correct".
Sometimes it is really sad to read from (even PhD level) students on social media about their paper writing practices.
We might remember the last 40 years differently, I seem to remember data centers requiring power plants and part shortages. I can't check though as Google search is too heavy for my on-plane wifi right now.
Even ignoring the cryptocurrency hype train, there were at least one or two bubbles in the history of the computer industry that revolved around actually useful technology, so I'm pretty sure there are precedents around "boasting about part shortages" and desperate build-up of infrastructure (e.g. networking) to meet the growing demand.
> Looking forward to the NALs responding why this is terrible.
My NAL guess is that it will go a little like this:
* Candidate makes disparaging post on reddit/HN.
* Gets many responses rallying behind him.
* Company (if they notice at all) sues him for breach of Non-Disparagement-Agreement.
* Candidate makes followup post/edit/comment about being sued for their post.
* Gets even more responses rallying behind him.
Result: Company gets $10.000 and even more damage to their image.
(Of course it might discourage some people from making that post to begin with, which would have been the goal. You might never try to enforce the NDA to prevent the above situation. Then it's just a question of: Is the effort to draft the NDA worth the reduction in risk of negative exposure, when you can simply avoid all of it by not providing feedback.)
Technically last year, but less than 365 days ago:
* The Mom Test
* The SAAS Playbook
Actually in this year, the ones I remember the most:
* Start Small, Stay Small
* From Yao To Mao (more a series of lectures on chinese history)
The most recent one I haven't finished yet but was surprised I liked:
* Software Engeineering at Google
Many more things described ring true or feel desireable, and I recognize too many of the anti-patterns from companies I worked for. Although, I also recognized the good things people were doing and started to appreciate them more.
It allows you the freedom to publish works in those worlds, reference characters, etc. See for example the horror game Alice: Madness Returns based on the Alice in Wonderland series.
The Verbraucherschutz sued over this, and, apparently, BahnCard is not covered by this regulations as it is a (paid) Bonus programme, not a service or product in itself.
Is there a binding precedent (like a BGH or OLG ruling), or is that just someone’s theory that it’s not covered? I did not check. If there is no binding ruling, your Amtsgericht judge may see things differently. Even if the law didn’t cover it directly, I’d wonder about the spirit of the law. If contracts are covered where an actual service is rendered, shouldn’t that apply all the more to mere bonus programmes? I see no justification in treating these differently. Again, no research done - just a prima facie smell test.
I remember the case of books used for training, where the court found training to be fair use, but the material has to be legally obtained (=Bought instead of pirated the books).
> and usage on it
What do you mean by "usage on it"?
reply