@Suiseiseki

> No, it isn't "any license in the GPL family".

It's GPL 2.0 per the documentation and the SPDX identifiers in the files.

> One example is this proprietary software, consisting of microprocessor instructions with no source code;

That code, such as it is, is GPL'd. I don't own any PowerPC hardware (besides a PS3) so I don't run that code anyway.

> Although it has "// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0" on the top, that is not the license as reviewing the git log, that was added via a script.

"If you run an editor to add an SPDX line, that is real. If you run a different program, that is not real."

> Some networks are IPv6-only

:shrug_akko: They're broken.

> and pretty much every endpoint on the internet can be reached from there except for broken endpoints that don't support IPv6.

I could say this about IPX/SPX networking.

> unless you're using IPv4 without NAT as it was designed to work

When people actually started attempting to use it, we ended up with RFCs 1338, 1518, 1519, 1541, 1597, 1631, 1917. It was "designed" to work with a massive hosts file, not with DNS. It was "designed" to accommodate 253 distinct networks, and then we decided to call those "Class A", and now they're "/8". The "original design" stopped being relevant before IPv6 was codified. RFC 824, written in the summer of 1982, describes bridging another network into the actual Internet (commonly called "IPv4"); "port numbers" were not part of the original design, just protocol identifiers, and hosts were expected to all speak telnet, finger, and FTP. White papers were not even solicited for IPng until December 1993.

The utopian vision, "There must only be one protocol, it must be IPng, and this design has been perfect from the beginning, and it solves all of the problems", is a complete failure based on the lies that this is the internet we're supposed to have, that eliminating "legacy" protocols is achievable or even desirable, that IPv6 has no real drawbacks, that IPv6 has no drawbacks compared to the Internet Protocol, that every improvement made to the Internet Protocol is actually a "hack", that "We want the computers to talk to each other" necessarily means that anything with a chip in it should be globally routeable, that no better protocol can exist, and so on.

Ye gods, I can suffer through someone saying they like IPv6, extolling IPv6's virtues, but failing to recognize IPv6's infelicities, pretending that it is the only way forward, pretending that every device must be globally addressable, and enough of that happens that I CANNOT BEAR YOUR WORDS, THEY ARE TOO TINY
lesson009.jpg