3.Yes, there most likely are structures that are "further" (or, equivalently, older) than this one, but probably not by far. The high energy during the first 1-2 billion years would have most likely prevented the formation of large structures. The first proto-stars are thought to have appeared at circa 2B-3B years from Da Bang.
Thus, if the distance of the quasar is confirmed, that would prove wrong the estimation of the age of the Universe that appears on the same page as a related story.
Yes. Open source projects I'm familiar with are very responsive too ( asking for sensible things does help ). But I feel very uneasy when I see users believing that those developers have any obligations towards them.
Many of those developers are happy to add some features from their users' wishlists. But it's important to point clearly that they do that just because they feel like it, not because they should.
If you ( or me or whoever ) really want/need a feature implemented you can:
Fund the development total or partially ( there're companies trying to make some bucks on commisions for contacting pools of prospective contractors willing to pay for the work, with programmers that can do the work and later give their contribution back to the community ).
Get your software from a distributor and ask for the feature to them. Most of the commercial ones are willing to (or at least should be) add some value to the product they are releasing.
Do it yourself ( aka Use the Source, Luke ).
Wait until someone decide to do it, for fun or whatever. But in that case, remember: They don't owe you anything, so you're not entitled to command anything, just ask politely and hope to have luck with your request;).
Bruce Peren's Technocrat forum deal with this in an interesting way. Whenever you want to post there, you have to first agree with the following conditions:
By submitting this message, you grant TECHNOCRAT.NET and its owners a separate and independent copyright to your posting, and you retain your own copyright. Thus, we can do whatever we want with your posting, and so can you. In 1999, we used our copyright to release all postings under the Open Publication License.
It seems that I should have explained my point better.
I know that software released under that license is free software ( and RMS set that clear ). However, I thought that people willing to contribute/take part of this contest should be warned that the code they submit might be made propietary by the organizer or someone else.
Thus, I think that the MIT license might be good for releasing your own code, but IMO is wrong ( and that's the rational behind the subject of my post ) to make it obligatory in this sort of contest. They might have let the participant choose which license to release their code under, among some widely known free software ones, like X/MIT, BSD, GPL, Artistic License, etc. Of course, YMMV.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what he does on other cases, but this article explains how he addressed his lack of knowledge on this particular issue.
Of course, the above article has been linked by /. before
3.Yes, there most likely are structures that are "further" (or, equivalently, older) than this one, but probably not by far. The high energy during the first 1-2 billion years would have most likely prevented the formation of large structures. The first proto-stars are thought to have appeared at circa 2B-3B years from Da Bang.
Thus, if the distance of the quasar is confirmed, that would prove wrong the estimation of the age of the Universe that appears on the same page as a related story.
Yes. Open source projects I'm familiar with are very responsive too ( asking for sensible things does help ). But I feel very uneasy when I see users believing that those developers have any obligations towards them.
Many of those developers are happy to add some features from their users' wishlists. But it's important to point clearly that they do that just because they feel like it, not because they should.
If you ( or me or whoever ) really want/need a feature implemented you can:
Fund the development total or partially ( there're companies trying to make some bucks on commisions for contacting pools of prospective contractors willing to pay for the work, with programmers that can do the work and later give their contribution back to the community ).
Get your software from a distributor and ask for the feature to them. Most of the commercial ones are willing to (or at least should be) add some value to the product they are releasing.
Do it yourself ( aka Use the Source, Luke ).
Wait until someone decide to do it, for fun or whatever. But in that case, remember: They don't owe you anything, so you're not entitled to command anything, just ask politely and hope to have luck with your request ;).
DiegoBy submitting this message, you grant TECHNOCRAT.NET and its owners a separate and independent copyright to your posting, and you retain your own copyright. Thus, we can do whatever we want with your posting, and so can you. In 1999, we used our copyright to release all postings under the Open Publication License.
Diego
I know that software released under that license is free software ( and RMS set that clear ). However, I thought that people willing to contribute/take part of this contest should be warned that the code they submit might be made propietary by the organizer or someone else.
Thus, I think that the MIT license might be good for releasing your own code, but IMO is wrong ( and that's the rational behind the subject of my post ) to make it obligatory in this sort of contest. They might have let the participant choose which license to release their code under, among some widely known free software ones, like X/MIT, BSD, GPL, Artistic License, etc. Of course, YMMV.
Diego
The MIT License (also known as the "X License") is used for all technical material, include program source code, manual pages, and similar material.
and
The project therefore requires source code and other purely technical material to use the MIT License
If you don't see any problem with that, just look at what RMS have to say about it.