I really can't work nearly as efficiently when my computer's in the same place I relax or sleep
While I do often work at coffee shops, I also work at home at my desk with my laptop. The desk is in the bedroom. It's really convenient for taking afternoon naps.
The Lisa 2 (the only Apple computer that used an arabic numeral, I think) most certainly did need a video board swap to make the pixels square. I installed one.
The Macintosh XL came later. It was the Lisa 2 hardware with a change of video board to make the pixels square so Mac software would look right on the Lisa screen. (Lisas has rectangular pixels that were taller than wide.)
you forgot the Post Office, an example of government subsidizing communication, not unlike the internet.
The US Postal Service (which stopped being called the "Post Office" years ago) is entirely self-funding through stamps and other services -- has been for years. No taxpayer money is used.
And that's why, when quality developers see that there is NO contributor to your project, even though there are several bug reports, they think one of the following...
How are they supposed to see unsolicited patches I get in private e-mail? How are they supposed to see unsolicited bug reports I get the same way?
There are thousands of alive projects on Freshmeat, and 1 project alive means at least 1 developer.
Right, and a majority of them have only one developer: the original author.
No, the main purpose of the GPL is explained on the FSF and GNU sites. It's just to have free code and keep it free. The GPL DOES NOT force you to make anything.
BSD-licensed code remains free regardless if somebody uses it for a closed-source product: you can still obtain the original, free code. Since the BSD license also keeps code free, that clearly can't be the purpose of the GPL. The GPL does force you to make a choice: either use GPL'd code and make your code GPL also, or don't use GPL'd code.
Which again leads me to ask: what's the point of using the GPL license, if nobody's going to get their contributions accepted?
The point you seem to have missed (twice!) is RMS' intent of the GPL. Yet again: to increase the amount of freely-available code in the world. Anybody can use my code as part of their and pay me nothing if their code is also GPL (or remains in-house only). Other authors who license under the GPL are free to (re)use my code and the wealth of other GPL'd code. That's the point. Get it?
You're the one wanting to give away without getting anything back since you don't accept contributions and you release under the GPL.
So I guess that makes me more of a saint than you.
As I said, I've never been in the situation where I've gotten anything worth while back, so it's all moot. If and when I get something worth including in my code, I may revisit my policy.
If somebody sends me an unsolicited patch, I'm under no obligation to do anything with it under any license. I'm not screwing anybody over since I'm not using their patch. That being the case, ethics never comes into play.
In the rare case I were to get a patch I did actually use, I could give them a dollars-per-line cut. So, for example, one of my projects has about 30K lines. If I get $30K for a license, I could send them a check for $1/line. Happy?
The GPL doesn't stop free-loaders. On the contrary. Free-loaders fork in-house, you never even hear about it.
If they fork in-house, then it's all irrelevant since the provisions of the GPL come into play only if they distribute their code outside of their house. (You don't seem to understand the GPL.)
If they do distibute it outside and by some chance I do hear about it, I can sue them. The BSD license gives me no such recourse.
If you want to be a noble saint and give away your code under the BSD license, that's your business. But don't expect me or anybody else to be so noble. I'd prefer either to compel them to make their code also GPL or make them write their own code.
And that is why anyone with half a brain should never contribute to your project, because that would mean you take their code too, and sell it, while they can't do it.
Over the years, I've gotten only a handful of very small patches and they've either been of pretty poor quality or fixed some bug in completely the wrong way (most likely because they don't understand the codebase well enough to know what the right way is). So, having been alerted to the bug, I ignore their patch and fix it independently so the code remains 100% mine.
Contrary to the starry-eyed vision of people like RMS and ESR, the number of open-source projects that attract a community of open-source developers who submit quality code is very small.
Since, through experience, I've learned that the number of quality patches or significant contributions is virtually non-existant, I'm not too concerned about people not contributing since it doesn't actually happen.
Before you say that the above proves your point, keep in mind that a potential submitter doesn't know in advance what my general philosophy/policy on contributions is, so it can't possibly act as a deterrent.
And in GPLing a project that no one should contribute too, defeats the purpose of the GPL.
Except that's not the purpose of the GPL. The main purpose of the GPL is to force users of code to make their code open-source (and GPL'd) also to contribute the source code of their project back into the pool of open-source so the amount of freely-available code grows.
Only the BSD license allows fair play.
The BSD license allows free-loaders to use (and profit) from the unpaid labor of others without giving anything back.
Most projects on sourceforge just use the GPL without thinking due to ignorance. This causes problems for corporate developers.
I write open-source software as a hobby. I release it under the GPL by choice. It's not my job to make corporate developers' jobs easier.
Being the sole author or my software allows me to dual license it. If somebody wants to use my code in a closed-source project, I can grant them a seperate license in exchange for a fee.
If my fee is less than the person-dollar-hours it would take for a corporate to develop, test, and debug their own code, then the best business decision is for them to pay me.
Nice in theory. I currently have a friend who has a long on my machine. I believe him to be a competent sysadmin. But if his machine is compromised for any reason, then mine is too. Thanks, but I'll stick to password authentication.
Does a whole generation of nerd need to move on and retire before people get the hint to stop buying this peice of 70's technology for their 21 century computer???
What are the odds that the carriers would get together and make a [phone number]@common-site.com that forwards to the various carrier mail exchangers?
You can do the forwarding yourself by getting some e-mail address and have it forward to your phone's e-mail address. You only give out the forwarding address and change the forwarded-to address whenever your carrier or number changes.
So, what is the solution? Go barefoot! Take off your shoes when inside and wear simple shoes that force your feet to flex like millions of years of evolution designed your feet to do.
You can take that a step further as I do and simply go barefoot most everywhere (weather permitting, which is year-round in California for me). (No, it's not against any law. Details here.
How is the EFF related to the ACLU? (I really don't know.) If there's no relation, what does a victory by the ACLU have to do with the effectiveness of the EFF?
Slashdot Mirror
The Lisa 2 (the only Apple computer that used an arabic numeral, I think) most certainly did need a video board swap to make the pixels square. I installed one.
The Macintosh XL came later. It was the Lisa 2 hardware with a change of video board to make the pixels square so Mac software would look right on the Lisa screen. (Lisas has rectangular pixels that were taller than wide.)
In the rare case I were to get a patch I did actually use, I could give them a dollars-per-line cut. So, for example, one of my projects has about 30K lines. If I get $30K for a license, I could send them a check for $1/line. Happy?
If they fork in-house, then it's all irrelevant since the provisions of the GPL come into play only if they distribute their code outside of their house. (You don't seem to understand the GPL.) If they do distibute it outside and by some chance I do hear about it, I can sue them. The BSD license gives me no such recourse.If you want to be a noble saint and give away your code under the BSD license, that's your business. But don't expect me or anybody else to be so noble. I'd prefer either to compel them to make their code also GPL or make them write their own code.
Contrary to the starry-eyed vision of people like RMS and ESR, the number of open-source projects that attract a community of open-source developers who submit quality code is very small.
Since, through experience, I've learned that the number of quality patches or significant contributions is virtually non-existant, I'm not too concerned about people not contributing since it doesn't actually happen.
Before you say that the above proves your point, keep in mind that a potential submitter doesn't know in advance what my general philosophy/policy on contributions is, so it can't possibly act as a deterrent.
Except that's not the purpose of the GPL. The main purpose of the GPL is to force users of code to make their code open-source (and GPL'd) also to contribute the source code of their project back into the pool of open-source so the amount of freely-available code grows. The BSD license allows free-loaders to use (and profit) from the unpaid labor of others without giving anything back.Being the sole author or my software allows me to dual license it. If somebody wants to use my code in a closed-source project, I can grant them a seperate license in exchange for a fee.
If my fee is less than the person-dollar-hours it would take for a corporate to develop, test, and debug their own code, then the best business decision is for them to pay me.
That's the way it is with me. I allow myself on my laptop to log in via RSA.
So why is this better than a passworf by itself?
Nice in theory. I currently have a friend who has a long on my machine. I believe him to be a competent sysadmin. But if his machine is compromised for any reason, then mine is too. Thanks, but I'll stick to password authentication.
The gas giant orbits the main star once every 3.3 days??! Damn, that's fast!
(Yes, this is my real set-up: 3 Mac Minis (2 running Linux), MGE UPS, and a bunch or other small stuff.)
"The Chinese don't need a rocket: they can stand on each other's shoulders." :)
How is the EFF related to the ACLU? (I really don't know.) If there's no relation, what does a victory by the ACLU have to do with the effectiveness of the EFF?