That’s a really great point and another reason I’ve really enjoyed the Garmin experience – Garmin doesn’t try to sell your own data back to you.
Getting anything more than the absolute most basic of real time data out of a Fitbit requires an annual subscription. With Garmin, it’s just there.
Fitbit is owned by Google and has the same policy of not repairing cracked screens.
I owned a Sense 2 and was in a bicycle crash. Screen hit the pavement and shattered. Absolutely no options from Fitibit/Google to get it repaired.
I switched to Garmin and couldn’t be happier.
It’s SEO-optimization nonsense.
FedEx ground are all contractors. It depends on who has the contract for your area, but they tend to be pretty bad IME as well.
Restricts Freedom to Use the Software
I’ve always found this particular one somewhat frustrating. It’s essentially the intolerance paradox repackaged into a software licensing analog:
“You are restricting the freedom of users by taking away their ability to close the code and restrict the freedom of other users!”
It’s always read very “I got mine” to me.
That said, while I lean copyleft, I also don’t find just barring commercial use entirely interesting. The goal is to ensure source code remains available to users; I think there are better ways of addressing that than trying to delineate and exclude commercial use.
This AI ruling is also actually completely in-line with existing precedent from the photography world.
The US Copyright Office has previously ruled that a photograph taken by a non-human (in this case, a monkey) is not copyrightable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_dispute