> Pursuant to Section 7 of AGPLv3, the copyright holder is expressly entitled to impose additional conditions. In the case of ONLYOFFICE, such conditions include, in particular:
>the obligation to retain the original product logo (Section 7(b));
>the denial of any rights to use the copyright holder’s trademarks (Section 7(e)).
In other words you must use our logo and you must not use our logo. Good luck enforcing that.
I wouldn't block any 401k plans from purchasing these stocks which would open those up to those safer dividend returns. The maintenance cost would be drastically lowered too since you're not buying and selling these so frequently.
I work with pathologists and radiology is way ahead of us with AI use in clinical setting (but still not very far). Only things that get serious use are lab-developed (ie not commercial) image analysis algorithms for very limited (tedious, error-prone and ultimately not that often used) biomarkers. Don't believe the hype.
You could also look at the market, one of the biggest players, Paige, was acquired for about 30% of the money they raised.
Nuget/.NET ecosystem just handles it so much better. Netvips assumes libvips is available and they provide packages for common platforms. No need to waste electricity rebuilding stuff, or install native build chains, build and test deps. Similar for Skia or Sqlite or whatever.
I absolutely don't. I even sometimes use "curl | bash" to install new things on my machine because most of the time it's easy and I tend to trust the authors.
My point was just that I don't think moving to pre-built binaries solves this issue.
The daughter company would presumable be allowed to purchase goods and services. What prevents those goods and services from being supplied (at a hefty markup) by another company under PE control?
>the obligation to retain the original product logo (Section 7(b));
>the denial of any rights to use the copyright holder’s trademarks (Section 7(e)).
In other words you must use our logo and you must not use our logo. Good luck enforcing that.
reply