No. Embrace, Extend, Extinguish was replaced by the AAA strategy: Acquire, Assimilate, Abandon. They were trying to be more Google-like with that "Abandon" step I think.

They've since moved on to the SSS strategy: Ship, Slip, Slop.

This license modifier already exists for others to use (I can't post the direct links here because this site will sanction me for doing so)

plus n-word dot com hosts information about the plus n-word license which purports:

- The software will not be used or hosted by western corporations that promote censorship

- The software will not be used or hosted by compromised individuals that promote censorship

- Users of the software will be immune to attacks that would result in censorship of others

We literally just did this. Now we have Valkey. Nobody won.

That actually is not analogy at all and it makes sense. When a low-paid Uber Eats delivery person just throws the box carelessly and brings damaged dish to the customer, that's a real issue.

In digital services there's no such thing. There's only a damned corporation employing idiots who don't care about community.

What? How?

Having multiple accounts wouldn't help, as Microsoft could easily suspend all the accounts of everyone associated with the project if any account looks suspicious. The single point of failure is Microsoft.

You're not actually allowed to avoid this by having multiple accounts, that falls under "ban evasion".

But yes, there's a lot of critical single maintainer projects.

No, that is not the issue here. The source of the problem is something different. This is a wrong root cause analysis.

How would more than one account help in this scenario, exactly?