You would be forced to fix the car, or sell it to someone who will fix it, or remove the plates and deregister it, or scrap it. If you don’t do anything the police will remove the plates.

I would advice fixing the car or selling it to someone who will fix it because it has some value.

https://www.vegvesen.no/en/vehicles/own-and-maintain/eu-mand...

https://www.vegvesen.no/en/vehicles/own-and-maintain/eu-mand...

With that said, I'm trying to understand why this article isn't met with a response like "it is extremely unethical to operate a vehicle in this condition. The drastically increased cognitive load, poor stopping performance, and lack of modern safety features makes this vehicle a lot more likely to hurt strangers when you hit them"

I never understood old car culture, let alone old and broken car culture displayed here. Surely a vehicle operator would have reduced response time with the increased cognitive load to any divergent situation and be placing other's lives at risk by not having their equipment maintained to an expected performance standard.

Not to mention the lack of braking, and lack of things like crumple zones etc, plus feeling light headed from engine fumes and poor ventilation.

I understand being into old technology, I've been involved in restoring old tape machines and vinyl cutting lathes, broadcast audio consoles etc, but I don't understand ignoring the fact that you are exposing unconsenting members of the public to an increased risk of injury or death because of your interest in old technology. I don't understand accepting the freedom of that choice when it exposes unconsenting others to more risk just for your own personal interest.

I can't help but harshly judge the author for their reckless decisions because the car isn't restricted to a closed course and can severely impact others lives simply because they enjoy the thrill of it.

I have to question that.

Nearly all of my worst experiences when using Linux have involved software that they or their developers have, to the best of my knowledge, been significantly involved with creating.

I'm thinking of software like systemd, PulseAudio, NetworkManager, GNOME 3, and Wayland, for example.

I've wasted far too much of my time dealing with unnecessary, silly, and inexcusable problems involving such software.

What makes it even worse is that despite me trying to avoid their ecosystem, their software has unfortunately still made it into other major distros, including Debian.

Red Hat says "bye, enjoy distributing that, no more RHEL for you." You still get to distribute what you already have. That's what the GPL entitles you to - it does not entitle you to a business relationship with Red Hat, ever. But your ability to distribute that source is preserved.

Red Hat releases 10.1. They do not have to distribute that to you, nor give you source code, you're no longer a customer.

Whether this is in line with the spirit of the GPL or not is another story. But at least as I understand it, it does not violate the GPL.

(Not that fighting a legal battle with IBM is something you can realistically do without losing your business, of course. But legally, I think one would have grounds to.)