KVM trays are generally only used for terminal/CLI access where widescreen doesn’t make much sense.

Widescreen ones are available (though not as plentiful) when the user is regularly using GUIs on it.

The bottom of his upper lip looks like his chin

I thought AGPL only makes sure that a modification from the original must be released, and doesn’t cover new unmodified software that would connect to a server.

A company like meta could easily design their own product from scratch that would also have it’s own network and just a simple plugin that can communicate with the fediverse. Wouldn’t this could be a way for them to skirt around sec. 13 of the AGPL.

Honest discourse for the purpose of highlighting any possible issues and fortifying against the EEE process. (Prepare for war; hope for peace):

Let’s say they were able to join… (We should at the very least go over this possibility, as it can also help our admins decide.) How would we be able to protect our network?

Would making sure any features of one instance/app be open and able to be modified and/or gracefully integrated into another be an option? (similar to the GPL license) An example would be keeping a party from restricting access to a private network only through their app. (looking at you, gTalk and iMessage)

Any other suggestions?

Someone actually asked an almost identical question on StackEx a while ago. (things may have changed since) From what I got from skimming the answer, is there is precedence, and it should be covered within the TOS of the hosting website/network (i.e. lemmy.world)

https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/7773/does-a-tos-also-apply-for-third-party-resources-on-a-website

Popey Claus?