Between the 800 years and the Seven of Limes are two things showing that either Reno has paid a visit to the 24th century or the writers lost the plot.
The 800 years if rounded could line up with Seven of Nine's Enterprise G.
One way of making software more fair is by allowing developers to profit. Many companies today invest resources into taking an existing project and copying the ongoing work of the project creators; afterwards, creating and maintaining a hosted version using their code. In a fair circumstance, should they benefit from using the software, they could add certain features, fix bugs and support the community of users enjoying the product. In many cases they do, but fair-code ensures that this can happen by bringing businesses to the negotiation table when it comes to commercializing software.
This is bullshit when only a set of developers are allowed to profit. Every single project with a non-commercial license I know has an exception for the company that owns the repo. At that point external contributions are not open or fair anything, it's a company stealing labour.
Either licenses are symmetrical or they are inherently unfair, and calling it Fair is doublespeak.
There's no reason why 114MB of static content over 5 minutes should be an issue for a public facing website. Hell, I probably could serve that and the images with a Raspberry Pi over my home Internet and still have bandwidth to spare.
I think they are throwing stones at the wrong glass house/software stack.
So a single entity is allowed to commercialize external contributions without any kind of reciprocity. Somehow it sounds worse to me than Shared Source.
If you are worried about leeches just use AGPL and call it a day.
Adhering to fiduciary duties to shareholders also includes protecting the company's relationship with its customers and its long term sustainability. Cashing out while burning out all the bridges is the opposite of protecting the legitimate rights of the shareholders.
In a healthy workplace your peers are allowed (and should even be incentivized) to give you feedback about your work. Requesting a justification can turn an order into valid constructive feedback. Or it can be the start of an entire circus performance if there's no actual justification but it would at least try to address the issue.
I think he means he's running the name server for his zone (i.e. the authority for subdomains of his domains), which of course doesn't help if the top level domain gets suspended and the NS record gets deleted.