High five, brother :)
I think the XP crowd was just the generation of "one step more tolerant towards privacy intrusions" / not quite computer knowledgeable enough to understand the implications of letting your operating system phone home. In terms of user interface, it was indeed tolerable - you could still configure it to look and behave like Win2K mostly, which is what I had to do for work for quite a long time.
Compared to Win2k, it would just be a resource-hog. :/
My trivial (non legal ;) answer is: If you are working for a corporation that is looking to patent something / make something closed license: the moment you ever looked at a single line of my code relevant to what you are doing, you are forbidden from releasing under any more restrictive license.
If you are a private person working on open source? Then you be the judge whether you copied enough of my code that you believe it is more than just "inspired by".
For most of history you would be better off if you could kill the next village over.
That is an incredibly stupid take. For most of history, the planet was so vast that people had plenty of room to hunt / farm / whatever.
And no, killing other humans is not in our DNA, the only people who feel like that are those with brain damage / development defects.
again, I don't have a problem with copying code - but I as a developer know whether I took enough of someone else's algorithm so that I should mention the original authorship :)
My only problem with circumventing licenses is when people put more restrictive licenses on plagiarized code.
And - I guess - in conclusion, if someone makes a license too free, so that putting a restrictive (commercial) license or patent on plagiarized / derived work, that is also something I don't want to see.
As I am a big proponent of open source, there is nothing wrong even with copying code - the point is that you should not be allowed to claim something as your own idea and definitely not to claim copyright on code that was "inspired" by someone else's work. The easiest solution would be to forbid patents on software (and patents altogether) completely. The only purpose that FOSS licenses have is to prevent corporations from monetizing the work under the license.
I am also sick to the core about this aspect of humanity. I feel that we as a species are just about developed enough to understand how a better world would look like, and how people should act, what's "the right thing to do" - and very much not developed enough to overcome our egoism and narcissism to make it happen, so we do the wrong thing despite knowing better far too often.
With the obligatory "fuck everyone who disregards open source licenses", I am still slightly amused at this raising eyebrows while nearly no one is complaining about MS using github to train their copilot LLM, which will help circumvent licenses & copyrights by the bazillion.
oh - my apologies, I forgot that on-board graphics have a dedicated chipset. Also, no idea whether on-board sound would have used CPU power back in the late days of soundcards, as the comment I responded to was claiming... might have been a sound chip for that, too..
And of course there was a short period of time where a sound card wasn’t required, but would actually improve performance by offloading audio processing to your sound card if you had one
we are at this point in history, but for graphics cards :)