Non-commercial and ethical clauses. These are commonly seen attempts to restrict licenses in violation of OSD 6, “No Discrimination Against Field of Endeavor.” These types of clauses limit where, why and how the software can be used.
It's that simple. Any attempt to restrict who can use the software, and how they can use it, renders it OSD incompatible. Chiefly, with this:
No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Prosecutors then had the replica gun forensically tested and had some parts of the weapon replaced after it was broken during the FBI's testing.
This is pretty much a mistrial right here, if it even gets that far. It would take barely more than zero effort to make the case that altering the firearm after the FBI's testing was enough to invalidate any results the prosecutors came up with.
I do not know why this is even a point that matters. He was on a set, in his capacity as an actor, blocking a scene with the cinematographer. This was a scene in which the gun was fired close to the camera. Him pulling the trigger was his job. The fact that the armorer did not do their fucking job and control live weapons on set is where the culpability actually is.
Episode 6: Dimension of the Machine was released in 2021. Quake was released in 1996, making it 25 years.
I have a feeling there's probably some obscure-ass Nethack clone that's been getting regular updates since the creator first programmed it on a PDP/11 but outside of that I can't think of any actual commercial products that have received expansions that long after.
You're taking bits and pieces and ignoring the full context, which is a shit thing to do.
The firearm should never have been available to an AD in the first place, or to anyone but the armorer.
On a set the assumption would be that anything available to someone that wasn't an armorer would be a non-firing replica.
The armorer alone is tasked with firearm safety on the set.
This is how it works. This is how the entire legality of the situation is established. As long as everyone is acting in good faith the liability does not fall to them, it falls to the armorer. When Baldwin received the weapon he did so believing it to be a non-firing replica, not an actual loaded firearm, as it would not be proper protocol for a loaded firearm to be available to anyone other than the armorer.
He has already settled the civil liability aspect with the victims and families. That was done rather quickly. As producer, he was liable for the hiring and continual employment of the incompetent armorer. That makes him liable on a civil level.
He has zero criminal culpability here, no matter how hard the DA tries. His roles as producer and actor are legally distinct.
You know literally nothing about anything. I already explained to you why none of your points are relevant. Stop making yourself look like more of an an idiot by continuing to post your ignorance to the world.
Yeah... it's an easy way to harass Hispanic and Black people while selectively not enforcing it against white people.
Those oh-so-amazing 50's just happened to be full of racist-ass laws enacted by the racist-ass "greatest generation" after they got back from PTSDland with nothing but alcohol and spousal abuse to help them cope.
A weapons safety course doesn't mean anything when it comes to criminal liability on a movie set. All that does is absolve the studio if stupid shit happens because an actor did stupid shit. It was not an actor that did stupid shit here, it was the armorer.
The armorer that Baldwin hired and continued to employ long after she was shown to be ill suited for the job, which made him and the company civilly liable.
Baldwin and the production company already came to a civil settlement with the deceased's family.
You pull a firearm’s trigger you bear responsibility for what happens. Period.
Utterly wrong. The ONLY person that bears any responsibility for firearm safety on the set of a movie is the armorer.
Unless absolutely necessary, no live or blank firing arms should be accessible to actors.
When needed, the armorer will verify the safety of the blank or live firearm and hand it to the actor. Depending on the armorer and the situation they may not even allow the actor to do something as simple as turn the safety off.
After firing the weapon, the armorer will take the firearm from the actor, clear it, and remove it from the set.
One person has that responsibility. In situations where there are multiple live or blank firing arms there may be multiple individuals with those same resposibilities, but ultimately it will still come down to the one in charge.
Repeat after me: A MOVIE SET IS NOT A GUN RANGE. You are not dealing with even twice a year hobbyist shooters. You are not in a controlled environment. The protocols that are used for firearms on set have been developed after decades of trial and error, and these are situations where said error ends in death. Trying to apply range logic to a movie set is what gets people killed, which is why sets do not work like that. You have one dedicated professional whose job is ensuring the safety of everyone on set WRT firearms. At no point did Baldwin have any responsibility to check any weapon as any weapon available to him at that time, by protocol, should have ONLY been a "weapon shaped object." That is, a chunk of rubber or plastic molded from a real weapon that's used for doing things like blocking shots (which is what Baldwin was doing) and generally carrying around a scene. Instead, the armorer had zero control over where firearms ended up and Baldwin picked up what he thought was a prop gun. Instead, it was a loaded live firearm. The scene involved Baldwin pointing a gun at the camera and pulling the trigger.
In no way is Baldwin criminally liable here.
Note I say nothing about civil liability. In my opinion, he's is absolutely responsible for helping create a lax working environment by continuing to employ an armorer that clearly did not give a shit about doing their job properly.
EDIT to mention that Baldwin and the production company VERY quickly came to a settlement agreement with the family of the deceased. They were always going to win so it basically just skipped over a meaningless trial.
That game had the unfortunate timing of being released when everyone knew CK3 was around the corner. It ended up being seen as a stopgap release and that just got worse when CK3 came out. It got a couple of DLCs but the players just weren't there anymore. It has some good ideas.
I'm just waiting for him to get his first Texas property tax bill and realize he shat his pants, upped stakes, and ran away from one form of capitalist hellhole to another. Austin's about to hit a brick frickin' wall with all the tech and crypto bros realizing that maybe the brutal heat and humidity, high property taxes, high sales tax, shittier than you'd think nightlife, and lack of legal weed aren't worth avoiding personal income tax for.
CDC, the people that actually track this shit, states 468 deaths from dog attacks in the US between 2011-2021.
So about 45 on average per year. The exact number is about to be irrelevant.
You want to lump all pit bull breeds together? Okay, let's say they're responsible for that TERRIFYING 70% of all attacks you pulled out of your ass elsewhere.
70% of 468 is 327.6. OMG SO DANGEROUS! Until you learn to fucking divide.
327.6 divided by 18,000,000 means that you have a 0.0000182 chance of a given pit bull being responsible for a fatal attack.
And that's if you're a disingenuous twat and smash all pit bull breeds together, which you would absolutely never do for all breeds with "shepherd" or "retriever" in their name.
There is literally no reason for anyone to fear any dog that is properly trained and not raised by shitheads, and every reason to fear ANY dog that is not.
It's not by coincidence that the only dogs that have ever bitten me were all cocker spaniels. They're almost universally owned by people that see them as cute and fluffy lap dogs despite them being considerable size and ill tempered when not trained properly. Do I like them? No. Would I ever want to ban them? Also no, because I'm not a fucking idiot.
It's that simple. Any attempt to restrict who can use the software, and how they can use it, renders it OSD incompatible. Chiefly, with this: