I only encountered it in one course, and that course really DID have only one professor, and since that course was CompSCI101 - it was impossible to get to the rest of the compsci faculty without passing through that.
By law, you cannot consent to sex unless you are of sound mind - if you aren't legally able to drive, you aren't legally able to consent to sex. Legally - it's not different than fucking a 15 year old - and in both cases, it's rape.
I could be on board with sensible limitations on it - though I'm not sure I agree with yours there are ways to experiment with different systems and try them out - much like New York and Maine have quite different free college programs in place in their new budgets. But their not as essential as you may think either - the G.I. Bill has very few actual limits like that- yet it returns 7 dollars in taxes for every dollar ever spent on it. There are very few things the government can do with our tax dollars that have a 700% return.
The comparison is not to "how much must taxpayers pay to put somebody through college" - it's how much would they spend sustaining that person who COULD have had a degree and a middle-class job on a minimum-wage job, using all the shared government services from sewage collection to roads to police but never paying taxes to contribute to their maintenance.
I did the maths in my country. Assuming an 18 year old with the ability to get a degree doesn't, and lives to 70 - working minimum wage jobs instead, that person wil use services of about 5 million dollars before they die- and never contribute a penny to the fiscuss (well a tiny bit of sales taxes but poor people also buy less stuff so that's nowhere near what their services cost). If that person has a degree and a middle class job - they make a nett contribution to the fiscus, allowing us to more easily carry the people who don't have the ability to get a degree or move beyond minimum wage jobs (and of course those who, through things like serious disability, cannot work at all). This sum didn't include ANY welfare by the way - no food stamps were factored in, no grants - JUST the cost of the shared social services they use but cannot contribute to. And that sum does not adjust the number for inflation over 52 years, so the real number is MUCH higher. A degree ? With decent living arangements, textbooks and a living allowance is about half a million. And afterwards, not only does this person actually for the 5-million odd in services we all use - they also help pay for some other people. We've not just saved 5-million, we've made a profit.
Now which of those is the smarter thing to put your money into ?
You could just SSHFS the remote directory into a local mount and work with the files that way. It would be faster than X sharing for this particular use-case.
Funny how you're writing this even as network transparency is having a major revival in several industries. Not least of which gaming (though this is not using X but specialised graphic streaming tech). Just look at the success of NVidia's streaming tech, or the Steam Link for that matter.
Actually it is - in fact, it's not just free - the cost is NEGATIVE. It's an investment - with extremely high and lucrative returns. In the medium to long term, making education free actually LOWERS everyone's taxes.
Hah, when I went to university there was a certain class of professor who was never going to do anything meaningful as a researcher, and so their favorite scam was to write a textbook on whatever subject they taught - and then prescribe that specific textbook for the course - and always require this years edition.
300 or 400 guaranteed sales every year for decades for a book that costs 3 times what comparable books on the subject costs - easy to get published and a nice little bonus of easy money for the professor every year. Hey if you're not going to get nice big research grants because you're a pretty poor researcher, and we insist on underpaying academics compared to what the private sector will pay them, and you're one of the few who can't get into the private sector you gotta pay the bills SOMEHOW right ? Milking your own students.
But it's also overclocking without checking the temperature - which will overheat a CPU and lead, at the very least, to code execution errors. The latter is pretty comon when taking these drugs - with neurons firing faster than censory input data can arrive, they have nothing to process - so they invent their own substitutes. We call the process 'halucination'.
Sharing nudes ? Not a problem. Taking nudes ? Not a problem. Still not against the rules either. Doing either without the consent of the nude people - big problem.
Drunken sex IS rape - unless you had consent for sex BEFORE she got drunk. Drunk people cannot consent. Now I enjoy a few glasses of wine before a romp too - but if alcohol and sex are both on the menu, I make damn sure we have an agreement about the sex BEFORE the booze is pored. Not because of any fear of legal repercussions- because I'm not an asshole.
Actually, it really should. Even RMS has repeatedly stated that different types of information should be covered by different laws - since there is no one-size-fits-all that works. Generally usefull technical information (like source code) ought to be freely redistributable, artistic expression should be redistributable but not usable for derivative works without consent, and individual private information like medical records should not be redistributable at all without specific consent. Intimate photos clearly fall in the 'individual private information' category.
And, again, blackduck is not a hosting site - you can't just compare google hits as if that tells you something - all that tells you is how many pages link to them. Blackduck is a software company specialising in analytical research software - and it so happens that one of the ways they prove their code is running comparative studies of license popularity - the most comprehensive studies of their kind there is. The data from github is PART of the input data they use, but their data even includes all those little projects still living on an FTP server somewhere that ever even got moved to a codehosting site... you know, like the fucking kernel.
>Oh, you mean like Apache, OpenSSL, and the BSD network stack? You just listed pretty much the TOTATILITY of the internet infrastructure that's NOT GPL - the thousands of other projects that form part of that infrastructure is a different story - not to mention the OS that nearly all of them ran on, the OS and development tools they were created and built and compiled with, the support libraries they used, the shell they ran in... these were almost all GPL.
>Regardless, your claim was proven wrong when looking at either study. No, the blackduck study clearly shows that, although GPL popularity has declined somewhat in recent years it was still the most popular license by a massive margin. And your counter-argument is that more new projects were founded (with all or nearly all not using the GPL) in the last 7 years than in the preceding 24 years since the GPL was first published ! For most of that time the ONLY projects that did NOT use it were basically those created at Berkeley (which didn't even get released until 10 years later) and those from MIT. The most influential of the latter being X - which the vast majority of people did not receive as free software exactly because of it's permissive license - it didn't become available to most people as an open-source project until the original release of XFree86 in 1992.
And the point is - you accuse me of living in the past, while ignoring that we were discussing HISTORY - you know, the past. The present is not particularly relevant, and even in the present the statement is still true- just slightly less so. Now it's entirely possible it will not be true in future, this would be tragic, but it's possible -and the trends suggests the possibility is quite strong. But that has nothing to do with today. Github based on some browsing is the most popular hosting site today - but there is no indication of how many projects are active (of my 6 projects there only one is active - so by your reasoning we can divide it by six) - the other ones have fewer projects but some like Savannah have a significantly higher percentage of active projects. Bitbucket doesn't even reveal numbers - but their high popularity with companies using the Atlassian stack suggests it will be quite high. There's the whole stack over at FreeDesktop.org.
Github may be a major player - but they are not the only player in town, and they remain a recent addition to the stable - just 7 years old, when we're discussing a period dating back to 1983.
People who are attached to the project have voluntarily accepted the risks - unlike everybody else. How does that NOT make sense ?
I again will not give citations for things that I didn't claim, have no knowledge off, do not care about and are not relevant.
>But the only alternative is it being by done government Not its not - the alternative is making sure that the law is such that CEOs lie awake at night terrified of the consequences if their company harms somebody and makes damn sure it never harms ANYBODY because they, personally, will face the same punishment as if I had done the same to you. The alternative, in fact, is to let the market do what it's good at - but make sure it actually does it UNDER the rule of law. In short - it's the exact OPPOSITE of deregulation.
Dude... stop advertising your lack of experience. 90% or more of active FOSS projects were founded before github ever existed - mostly decades before. Github represents such a tiny sample size its ridiculous to extrapolate from it. All the latesr sexy projects are there - but thats useless for this question. And we who have experience in FOSS have known black duck for decades
I don't need to give citations for claims I never made. I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about government space disasters and so I owe no citations for any claims about it.
I simply stated the fact that the law is no deterrent to evil, harmful or outright murderous behaviour by wealthy corporations because it lacks any real teeth and if ever a law is actually inconvenient those nice republican congressmen they bought will get rid of it for them.
More-over your analogy is false - there has been exactly ZERO cases where a government space craft has caused harm to a civilian not attached to the project. Whether there may or may not be criminal negligence behind some of the mistakes that led to disasters is an interesting question - but completely unrelated to the question of what penalties should be faced if a civilian who is entirely unrelated to the project, and may not even live in the same country, is harmed - and whether those penalties are likely to be sufficiently adequate to deter criminally negligent behavior. These are what economists call externalities - costs born by people who are not a party to the transaction, and the history of capitalism has been to maximize externalities - and historically the law has not been made strong enough or adequately enforced to prevent this. More-over republicans in particular have gone to great lengths to reduce the risk of any company ever facing liability for externalities - for example with their drives for deregulation and 'tort reform' (a euphemism that really means: make it impossible to sue a company for killing your children so they won't even face civil cases).
The very first link if you google it, is to the most comprehensive study that exists - and the most up to date data. And it clearly shows that the GPL2 is still by far the most popular license with GPL3 in second place - combined they cover a full 37% of all projects by themselves -the remaining 63% divided among ALL OTHER licenses - including the other GNU copyleft licences like the AGPL.
ALL the predictions by climate scientists have been successful - the people who tell you they haven't are lying to you through the simple expedient of pretending they were predicting the WEATHER and then pointing out that every so often the weather doesn't agree with the predictions (which is not surprising since it was never what they predicted). Now the DEGREE of accuracy of prediction has not been constant, it has been steadily improving from -the ballpark has been getting smaller and the margins of error narrower. But you don't want evidence. You are a denier - you will never be convinced by evidence - if you could be convinced by evidence we wouldn't be talking about this at all.
And as for your claims - they made the news exactly because they are such a rare event. For every time that has happened a fucking thousand of them got away with far more serious crimes. Not ONE of the bankers whose flagrantly fraudulent labelling of junk bonds as AAA-rated investments all but destroyed the world's economy in 2008 went to prison. Not a single one. Johnson and Johnson was convicted of lying to doctors to get them to prescribe drugs to babies and the elderly for things those drugs were never tested for or determined safe for, they faced a small fine (far less than the profits they made from it).
There's no actual justice for the rich - and even YOUR examples do not consitute anything resembling it. Talk to me again when the punishment a CEO faces for ANY action by his company is EXACTLY the same as I would face if *I* did that action - MULTIPLIED by the number of victims because money magnifies outcomes. All my efforts at doing good pales into nothingness next to what the Gates foundation has done - because they have lots and lots of money that magnifies their good efforts. But it also magnifies evil things. If I poison a well in Texas - I will get the death penalty. So JUSTICE means the next fucking company to poison a whole town's drinking water has their CEO face 2000 charges of murder and basically a judge declaring that it's a true pity we can only fry him ONCE.
Nothing less is justice. Nothing less is equality before the law.
It could be free, if time isn't much of a factor - you could use radiation thrust for example, so you don't need to burn fuel to get to where you're going. It's slow as all hell - but it works, hell some satelites like Voyager used radiation thrust as a primary station-keeping tool.
Criminal penalties for a CEO... bwahahahahahaha what century do you think this is ? We haven't expected corporations to actually FOLLOW the law, and been steadily getting rid of every law we made for them that they don't follow anyway, for decades... you think they'll CARE ?
Their sum will simply be: is the fine likely to be larger than the cost of not causing this problem ? No (it never is). The end.
Unlikely. Launch capability is quite a step from ORBITAL launch capability. We have had solid-fuel rockets (gunpowder based) since the 13th century. We didn't get to liquid fueled rockets until 1926. From there to the first manmade objects to reach space were German V2 rockets during world war 2 - twenty years later. It took another twenty years for Sputnik 1 to become the first manmade object to actually get into orbit (and it only stayed there a few months). The oldest object in space is Vanguard 1 which was the first truly high-orbit satelite launched in 1964.
The sputnik 1 level tech couldn't do much serious harm - it just wasn't high enough (it's apoaps was over 900km but it's periapse was barely out of atmo). The satelites you want to harm are a lot higher up - and you want to maximize collisions so you want to blow up your bag of dirt and nails near them - in a circular orbit for maximum intersects. Indeed hitting anything in space on purpose seriously hard - but sending a bunch of random junk flying around hoping to hit some satellites may be feasible.
But to get from V2 to Sputnik1 and Explorer/Vanguard era satelites in 20 years - took many of the best minds in physics, chemistry and engineering in the world - which the US and Russia had at the time. North Korea does not have many such minds - their oppressive system and academic control also greatly reduces their ability to produce good scientists, their weak economy harms their manufacturing capacity...
And sputnik and vanguard had payloads of a few kilograms - to do real damage you want to take a LOT of junk - so at least a few tonnes. So you need a launch vehicle at least on par with later model Soviet R7's or the US's Mercury or Saturn Launch Vehicles. Right now - North Korea has only once managed to put something into orbit. They claim a polar orbit with a period of 94 minutes - if we believe them that would mean they can just about put a small satellite where Sputnik 1 had it's periapsis. And they cannot do that reliably - North Korean rockets have tended to fail more often than succeed.
So could this conceivably happen ? Sure, but it seems unlikely - for the same advances that you need to achieve this, you could build highly effective ICBMS which make great propaganda television - and this, I think, is why NK has been focusing on the latter (which they don't seem likely to actually achieve any time soon).
It's been studied repeatedly - there are simply far more open source projects under the GPL-family of licenses than any other license. That implies it is chosen by more free/open source developers than any other license - which makes it the most popular.
You could argue that something like the apache license is used on projects more people use than many GPL projects - but it's used on far fewer projects, so it's definitely less popular with developers. There are specific niches where the GPL lacks popularity - usually areas where FOSS and small-scale proprietory software frequently co-exist and have a good mutually beneficial relationship - indy games for example, where there is generally strong pressure on FOSS indy-devs to use the MIT license so that their assets can be used by proprietory indy-games devs - and the return for that is that they get to use a lot of the art assets from those proprietory devs under things like the C.C. licenses. In those environments a GPL project tends to struggle to attract volunteers since most of the people who may volunteer to work on your free game are probably working on a game of their own which may not be free and they would want to be able to reuse some of your work in return for contributing to your project.
But those are small niches - and tend to be notable in that the companies doing proprietory work are tiny (often one-man) shops which can negotate with the FOSS projects on equal terms - there isn't much fear among the FOSS guys that their code would be used in some major proprietory project with a huge marketing budget that actually displaces them and gives the users ONLY the non-free version. The Apple/FreeBSD rip-off is unlikely there. Indeed, the ONLY time I've EVER done a FOSS project under any licence other than the GPL was a games project- due to the nature of the indy+foss game community and how the two communities overlap and interact.
Slashdot Mirror
I only encountered it in one course, and that course really DID have only one professor, and since that course was CompSCI101 - it was impossible to get to the rest of the compsci faculty without passing through that.
By law, you cannot consent to sex unless you are of sound mind - if you aren't legally able to drive, you aren't legally able to consent to sex. Legally - it's not different than fucking a 15 year old - and in both cases, it's rape.
I could be on board with sensible limitations on it - though I'm not sure I agree with yours there are ways to experiment with different systems and try them out - much like New York and Maine have quite different free college programs in place in their new budgets. But their not as essential as you may think either - the G.I. Bill has very few actual limits like that- yet it returns 7 dollars in taxes for every dollar ever spent on it. There are very few things the government can do with our tax dollars that have a 700% return.
The comparison is not to "how much must taxpayers pay to put somebody through college" - it's how much would they spend sustaining that person who COULD have had a degree and a middle-class job on a minimum-wage job, using all the shared government services from sewage collection to roads to police but never paying taxes to contribute to their maintenance.
I did the maths in my country. Assuming an 18 year old with the ability to get a degree doesn't, and lives to 70 - working minimum wage jobs instead, that person wil use services of about 5 million dollars before they die- and never contribute a penny to the fiscuss (well a tiny bit of sales taxes but poor people also buy less stuff so that's nowhere near what their services cost). If that person has a degree and a middle class job - they make a nett contribution to the fiscus, allowing us to more easily carry the people who don't have the ability to get a degree or move beyond minimum wage jobs (and of course those who, through things like serious disability, cannot work at all). This sum didn't include ANY welfare by the way - no food stamps were factored in, no grants - JUST the cost of the shared social services they use but cannot contribute to. And that sum does not adjust the number for inflation over 52 years, so the real number is MUCH higher. A degree ? With decent living arangements, textbooks and a living allowance is about half a million. And afterwards, not only does this person actually for the 5-million odd in services we all use - they also help pay for some other people. We've not just saved 5-million, we've made a profit.
Now which of those is the smarter thing to put your money into ?
You could just SSHFS the remote directory into a local mount and work with the files that way. It would be faster than X sharing for this particular use-case.
Funny how you're writing this even as network transparency is having a major revival in several industries. Not least of which gaming (though this is not using X but specialised graphic streaming tech). Just look at the success of NVidia's streaming tech, or the Steam Link for that matter.
Actually it is - in fact, it's not just free - the cost is NEGATIVE.
It's an investment - with extremely high and lucrative returns. In the medium to long term, making education free actually LOWERS everyone's taxes.
Hah, when I went to university there was a certain class of professor who was never going to do anything meaningful as a researcher, and so their favorite scam was to write a textbook on whatever subject they taught - and then prescribe that specific textbook for the course - and always require this years edition.
300 or 400 guaranteed sales every year for decades for a book that costs 3 times what comparable books on the subject costs - easy to get published and a nice little bonus of easy money for the professor every year.
Hey if you're not going to get nice big research grants because you're a pretty poor researcher, and we insist on underpaying academics compared to what the private sector will pay them, and you're one of the few who can't get into the private sector you gotta pay the bills SOMEHOW right ? Milking your own students.
But it's also overclocking without checking the temperature - which will overheat a CPU and lead, at the very least, to code execution errors. The latter is pretty comon when taking these drugs - with neurons firing faster than censory input data can arrive, they have nothing to process - so they invent their own substitutes. We call the process 'halucination'.
Sharing nudes ? Not a problem. Taking nudes ? Not a problem. Still not against the rules either.
Doing either without the consent of the nude people - big problem.
Drunken sex IS rape - unless you had consent for sex BEFORE she got drunk. Drunk people cannot consent. Now I enjoy a few glasses of wine before a romp too - but if alcohol and sex are both on the menu, I make damn sure we have an agreement about the sex BEFORE the booze is pored. Not because of any fear of legal repercussions- because I'm not an asshole.
Actually, it really should. Even RMS has repeatedly stated that different types of information should be covered by different laws - since there is no one-size-fits-all that works. Generally usefull technical information (like source code) ought to be freely redistributable, artistic expression should be redistributable but not usable for derivative works without consent, and individual private information like medical records should not be redistributable at all without specific consent. Intimate photos clearly fall in the 'individual private information' category.
And, again, blackduck is not a hosting site - you can't just compare google hits as if that tells you something - all that tells you is how many pages link to them. Blackduck is a software company specialising in analytical research software - and it so happens that one of the ways they prove their code is running comparative studies of license popularity - the most comprehensive studies of their kind there is. The data from github is PART of the input data they use, but their data even includes all those little projects still living on an FTP server somewhere that ever even got moved to a codehosting site... you know, like the fucking kernel.
>Oh, you mean like Apache, OpenSSL, and the BSD network stack?
You just listed pretty much the TOTATILITY of the internet infrastructure that's NOT GPL - the thousands of other projects that form part of that infrastructure is a different story - not to mention the OS that nearly all of them ran on, the OS and development tools they were created and built and compiled with, the support libraries they used, the shell they ran in... these were almost all GPL.
>Regardless, your claim was proven wrong when looking at either study.
No, the blackduck study clearly shows that, although GPL popularity has declined somewhat in recent years it was still the most popular license by a massive margin.
And your counter-argument is that more new projects were founded (with all or nearly all not using the GPL) in the last 7 years than in the preceding 24 years since the GPL was first published ! For most of that time the ONLY projects that did NOT use it were basically those created at Berkeley (which didn't even get released until 10 years later) and those from MIT. The most influential of the latter being X - which the vast majority of people did not receive as free software exactly because of it's permissive license - it didn't become available to most people as an open-source project until the original release of XFree86 in 1992.
And the point is - you accuse me of living in the past, while ignoring that we were discussing HISTORY - you know, the past. The present is not particularly relevant, and even in the present the statement is still true- just slightly less so. Now it's entirely possible it will not be true in future, this would be tragic, but it's possible -and the trends suggests the possibility is quite strong. But that has nothing to do with today.
Github based on some browsing is the most popular hosting site today - but there is no indication of how many projects are active (of my 6 projects there only one is active - so by your reasoning we can divide it by six) - the other ones have fewer projects but some like Savannah have a significantly higher percentage of active projects. Bitbucket doesn't even reveal numbers - but their high popularity with companies using the Atlassian stack suggests it will be quite high. There's the whole stack over at FreeDesktop.org.
Github may be a major player - but they are not the only player in town, and they remain a recent addition to the stable - just 7 years old, when we're discussing a period dating back to 1983.
People who are attached to the project have voluntarily accepted the risks - unlike everybody else. How does that NOT make sense ?
I again will not give citations for things that I didn't claim, have no knowledge off, do not care about and are not relevant.
>But the only alternative is it being by done government
Not its not - the alternative is making sure that the law is such that CEOs lie awake at night terrified of the consequences if their company harms somebody and makes damn sure it never harms ANYBODY because they, personally, will face the same punishment as if I had done the same to you.
The alternative, in fact, is to let the market do what it's good at - but make sure it actually does it UNDER the rule of law. In short - it's the exact OPPOSITE of deregulation.
Dude... stop advertising your lack of experience. 90% or more of active FOSS projects were founded before github ever existed - mostly decades before. Github represents such a tiny sample size its ridiculous to extrapolate from it. All the latesr sexy projects are there - but thats useless for this question. And we who have experience in FOSS have known black duck for decades
I don't need to give citations for claims I never made. I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about government space disasters and so I owe no citations for any claims about it.
I simply stated the fact that the law is no deterrent to evil, harmful or outright murderous behaviour by wealthy corporations because it lacks any real teeth and if ever a law is actually inconvenient those nice republican congressmen they bought will get rid of it for them.
More-over your analogy is false - there has been exactly ZERO cases where a government space craft has caused harm to a civilian not attached to the project. Whether there may or may not be criminal negligence behind some of the mistakes that led to disasters is an interesting question - but completely unrelated to the question of what penalties should be faced if a civilian who is entirely unrelated to the project, and may not even live in the same country, is harmed - and whether those penalties are likely to be sufficiently adequate to deter criminally negligent behavior.
These are what economists call externalities - costs born by people who are not a party to the transaction, and the history of capitalism has been to maximize externalities - and historically the law has not been made strong enough or adequately enforced to prevent this. More-over republicans in particular have gone to great lengths to reduce the risk of any company ever facing liability for externalities - for example with their drives for deregulation and 'tort reform' (a euphemism that really means: make it impossible to sue a company for killing your children so they won't even face civil cases).
http://redmonk.com/sogrady/201...
The very first link if you google it, is to the most comprehensive study that exists - and the most up to date data. And it clearly shows that the GPL2 is still by far the most popular license with GPL3 in second place - combined they cover a full 37% of all projects by themselves -the remaining 63% divided among ALL OTHER licenses - including the other GNU copyleft licences like the AGPL.
ALL the predictions by climate scientists have been successful - the people who tell you they haven't are lying to you through the simple expedient of pretending they were predicting the WEATHER and then pointing out that every so often the weather doesn't agree with the predictions (which is not surprising since it was never what they predicted).
Now the DEGREE of accuracy of prediction has not been constant, it has been steadily improving from -the ballpark has been getting smaller and the margins of error narrower. But you don't want evidence.
You are a denier - you will never be convinced by evidence - if you could be convinced by evidence we wouldn't be talking about this at all.
And as for your claims - they made the news exactly because they are such a rare event. For every time that has happened a fucking thousand of them got away with far more serious crimes. Not ONE of the bankers whose flagrantly fraudulent labelling of junk bonds as AAA-rated investments all but destroyed the world's economy in 2008 went to prison. Not a single one. Johnson and Johnson was convicted of lying to doctors to get them to prescribe drugs to babies and the elderly for things those drugs were never tested for or determined safe for, they faced a small fine (far less than the profits they made from it).
There's no actual justice for the rich - and even YOUR examples do not consitute anything resembling it. Talk to me again when the punishment a CEO faces for ANY action by his company is EXACTLY the same as I would face if *I* did that action - MULTIPLIED by the number of victims because money magnifies outcomes. All my efforts at doing good pales into nothingness next to what the Gates foundation has done - because they have lots and lots of money that magnifies their good efforts. But it also magnifies evil things.
If I poison a well in Texas - I will get the death penalty. So JUSTICE means the next fucking company to poison a whole town's drinking water has their CEO face 2000 charges of murder and basically a judge declaring that it's a true pity we can only fry him ONCE.
Nothing less is justice. Nothing less is equality before the law.
Wouldn't work. We need to breed ill tempered SPACE sea bass !
Educated people know better than to try and drink salt water.
It could be free, if time isn't much of a factor - you could use radiation thrust for example, so you don't need to burn fuel to get to where you're going. It's slow as all hell - but it works, hell some satelites like Voyager used radiation thrust as a primary station-keeping tool.
Criminal penalties for a CEO ... bwahahahahahaha what century do you think this is ? We haven't expected corporations to actually FOLLOW the law, and been steadily getting rid of every law we made for them that they don't follow anyway, for decades ... you think they'll CARE ?
Their sum will simply be: is the fine likely to be larger than the cost of not causing this problem ? No (it never is). The end.
Unlikely. Launch capability is quite a step from ORBITAL launch capability. We have had solid-fuel rockets (gunpowder based) since the 13th century. We didn't get to liquid fueled rockets until 1926. From there to the first manmade objects to reach space were German V2 rockets during world war 2 - twenty years later. It took another twenty years for Sputnik 1 to become the first manmade object to actually get into orbit (and it only stayed there a few months). The oldest object in space is Vanguard 1 which was the first truly high-orbit satelite launched in 1964.
The sputnik 1 level tech couldn't do much serious harm - it just wasn't high enough (it's apoaps was over 900km but it's periapse was barely out of atmo). The satelites you want to harm are a lot higher up - and you want to maximize collisions so you want to blow up your bag of dirt and nails near them - in a circular orbit for maximum intersects. Indeed hitting anything in space on purpose seriously hard - but sending a bunch of random junk flying around hoping to hit some satellites may be feasible.
But to get from V2 to Sputnik1 and Explorer/Vanguard era satelites in 20 years - took many of the best minds in physics, chemistry and engineering in the world - which the US and Russia had at the time. North Korea does not have many such minds - their oppressive system and academic control also greatly reduces their ability to produce good scientists, their weak economy harms their manufacturing capacity...
And sputnik and vanguard had payloads of a few kilograms - to do real damage you want to take a LOT of junk - so at least a few tonnes. So you need a launch vehicle at least on par with later model Soviet R7's or the US's Mercury or Saturn Launch Vehicles.
Right now - North Korea has only once managed to put something into orbit. They claim a polar orbit with a period of 94 minutes - if we believe them that would mean they can just about put a small satellite where Sputnik 1 had it's periapsis. And they cannot do that reliably - North Korean rockets have tended to fail more often than succeed.
So could this conceivably happen ? Sure, but it seems unlikely - for the same advances that you need to achieve this, you could build highly effective ICBMS which make great propaganda television - and this, I think, is why NK has been focusing on the latter (which they don't seem likely to actually achieve any time soon).
It's actually a perfectly accurate analogy. Getting the recipe ALLOWS you to make your own beer, it doesn't REQUIRE you to do so.
It's been studied repeatedly - there are simply far more open source projects under the GPL-family of licenses than any other license. That implies it is chosen by more free/open source developers than any other license - which makes it the most popular.
You could argue that something like the apache license is used on projects more people use than many GPL projects - but it's used on far fewer projects, so it's definitely less popular with developers. There are specific niches where the GPL lacks popularity - usually areas where FOSS and small-scale proprietory software frequently co-exist and have a good mutually beneficial relationship - indy games for example, where there is generally strong pressure on FOSS indy-devs to use the MIT license so that their assets can be used by proprietory indy-games devs - and the return for that is that they get to use a lot of the art assets from those proprietory devs under things like the C.C. licenses. In those environments a GPL project tends to struggle to attract volunteers since most of the people who may volunteer to work on your free game are probably working on a game of their own which may not be free and they would want to be able to reuse some of your work in return for contributing to your project.
But those are small niches - and tend to be notable in that the companies doing proprietory work are tiny (often one-man) shops which can negotate with the FOSS projects on equal terms - there isn't much fear among the FOSS guys that their code would be used in some major proprietory project with a huge marketing budget that actually displaces them and gives the users ONLY the non-free version. The Apple/FreeBSD rip-off is unlikely there.
Indeed, the ONLY time I've EVER done a FOSS project under any licence other than the GPL was a games project- due to the nature of the indy+foss game community and how the two communities overlap and interact.