Were you in London, which I've heard is hideously expensive?
Thames Valley - so close geographically, but not as expensive to live. In London the equivalent salary would be about £75,000 as although its expensive, most salaries come with a "London weighting"
In the end that's kind of the solution we went for. We took on 4 more junior level people to train up alongside a couple of contractors to keep the project going while the training was ongoing.
BTW, unlike some of the other posts have suggested, we were offering a highly competitive salary of £60,000 per year (~$120,000).
Over the course of last year I needed to hire 10 experienced J2EE developers. I literally interviewed hundreds, but was only able to find 6 suitable candidates. While it is true that there isn't a shortage of applicants, there is most certainly a shortage of people who can actually perform the advertised job.
I doubt it as the line I suspect you're referring to, "the same or substantially the same features or functionality" as the.NET Framework.'", could equally apply to Java.
Although it can be considered a branch of AI (at least it was in my University), what you want for this kind of problem is Simulated Annealing, not necessarily a full Neural Network.
Certainly in Halo 3 I chose white for my Master Chief colour and I found that I was doing well in Snowbound but not quite as well on other maps. So as an experiment I changed my Master Chief to brown and my overall stats have raised a little. It doesn't make a huge amount of difference, but it's enough to get that split second edge.
No I'm not a troll and I understand the history. Just that I don't recognise the authority of the OSI to define such terms. I've been through this on another thread with Bruce Perens here and he couldn't come up with any valid reasons that I (or others) could see for claiming that authority.
We've had this discussion before, and the OSI have *absolutely* no authority to claim any ownership on the term or definition open source. Open source to me (and most other people) means that the source is available for examination. End of story.
I'm beginning to get to the end of my tether with the zealotry and politics involved in the FOSS community. It's rapidly becoming a cult where no sense can be talked to the brainwashed members.
The problem I thnk a lot of people have with the FSF and GPL is that it's moving away from a "this will protect your code whilst allowing others to use it" licence, to a "we have a philosophy about how the software should be used" license. This is why I have removed the "and any later version" clause from my GPL v2 code, and why these restrictions are being placed in other licenses.
It's not that people like me don't want to share the code, just that we don't want to join the Cult of the Gnu either. For it is, almost, turning into a religious issue of whether you swallow the FSF dogma, rather than a practical one of whether you just want other people to benefit from the code.
Personally, I'm seeing a migration away from Linux onto Macs over here in the UK. I was a regular Linux user myself (as in my only OS) from Mandrake 8 all the way through to Ubuntu Dapper Drake. But in November I got myself a MacBook and haven't looked back. Amongst my peers I'm also seeing this trend.
The TFA says that the distros are in fact distributing the codecs without the required licenses for the USA and that a warning is shown before they are installed. What I'm saying is that the installer could use the current locale to determine whether that warning is required, and if it is, provide more country specific information. It wouldn't be hard to implement.
Why don't the Linux vendors just detect what locale you've chosen in the install and show the legalese accordingly? Then those who live in countries where it isn't illegal (ie. most of the world) don't have to see a scary message. On top of that, they could name the countries where it is illegal and explain why. That way those who have to see the message know exactly why they're being shown it, and maybe target their annoyance at the correct people.
OK, it's your box. But it's their service that you're connecting to with your box. They have the right to limit access to that service if you change the original software. It's easier for them if they just make it so that modified software doesn't run, rather than trying to detect modified software. It's simple practicality and perfectly reasonable, not matter how many times you say "fuck".
What "2 only" products do you plan to distribute? I might want to avoid them...
Actually none really. I prefer the Apache license. The particular code I'm talking about is only GPLv2 because I borrowed some other GPLv2 code for use in it. Otherwise it would be Apache licensed as well.
Tivoization removes freedom from the end users against the spirit of the GPLv2
No it doesn't. If you own a TiVo, you can get the source to the software in their box. You can port it to another box if you have the technical skill and really want to. You just cannot put your modified software back onto their box as that may enable you to get round their service restrictions, for example. There is nothing wrong with that - their just protecting their own interests. There's nothing in the GPLv2, in spirit or in words, that prevents anyone doing that, and nor should there be IMO.
What could happen in your specific case is that a telco takes your code and starts offering it as for-pay download to their user's mobile phones--only that users cannot share it because there is some sort of hardware lock in place.
That's exactly my point. Why shouldn't they be able to do that? As long as the source is available (which they would still be required to provide - as TiVo are as well) then that seems to me to be the license that I originally gave it.
BTW, I would have been happy with the BSD license. I use the Apache license on some of my other stuff, but my Sudoku program contains a couple of algorithms (to do with generating symmetrical Sudokus) I took from another GPLv2 project and I cannot change the license on those.
...I don't agree with the new clauses in GPLv3 as opposed to GPLv2 and although my current licenses contain the "or higher" clause, I am going to be removing that in the coming weeks and leaving the code at GPLv2 only.
I'm paricularly against the "Tivoization" clause and cannot for the life of me see what benefits it gives to the copyright holder or user of the code. All it seems to do as far as I can see is take away the freedom to use my code in the way I originally granted.
You need to learn what a race is - hint, it has nothing to do with skin colour (Pakistanis and Arabs are Caucasoid for example). The Japanese are part of the Mongoloid race. There are only 2 (or 3 if you count Australian Aboriginals) others - Negroid and Caucasoid.
That's not what the GP means. Over here it's common to be able to buy your phone without having to enter into a contract with any of the service providers. This means that if you want to change providers, you just substitue the SIM card and that's it. No lock ins. It would be a deal breaker for me if I couldn't do this as well, as in my case I only use pay-as-you-go plans. I don't enter into contracts with phone operators. Basically, I require to be able to just stick the SIM from my current phone into the iPhone and keep the same number and plan. That, at least, is what most people in the UK would expect to be able to do IMO.
Bob
Trademark law. You might want to look it up some day, but it grants the legal authority because they first came up with the term. I wonder if it hasn't become somewhat generic by now, but that's a legal worry and it's not mine.
I'm from the UK. US trademark law does not apply here. Here you have to actively register a trademark. They haven't. Therefore I, personally, do not recognise that mark.
Sorry, but I don't recognise yours or the OSIs authority in this matter. Also, I agree with the grandparent, open source to me means that the source code is available, nothing more, and nothing less. The term does not define that certain freedoms are available with the source code, indeed it cannot given that even under the OSI approved licenses those freedoms vary wildly. In essence, the only constant I see amongst even the official definition is that the code is available - therefore that is what the term means to me (and I assume most other people outside of the "community").
Slashdot Mirror
Thames Valley - so close geographically, but not as expensive to live. In London the equivalent salary would be about £75,000 as although its expensive, most salaries come with a "London weighting"
Bob
In the end that's kind of the solution we went for. We took on 4 more junior level people to train up alongside a couple of contractors to keep the project going while the training was ongoing.
BTW, unlike some of the other posts have suggested, we were offering a highly competitive salary of £60,000 per year (~$120,000).
Bob
Over the course of last year I needed to hire 10 experienced J2EE developers. I literally interviewed hundreds, but was only able to find 6 suitable candidates. While it is true that there isn't a shortage of applicants, there is most certainly a shortage of people who can actually perform the advertised job.
Bob
Bob
I doubt it as the line I suspect you're referring to, "the same or substantially the same features or functionality" as the
Bob
Although it can be considered a branch of AI (at least it was in my University), what you want for this kind of problem is Simulated Annealing, not necessarily a full Neural Network.
Bob
Certainly in Halo 3 I chose white for my Master Chief colour and I found that I was doing well in Snowbound but not quite as well on other maps. So as an experiment I changed my Master Chief to brown and my overall stats have raised a little. It doesn't make a huge amount of difference, but it's enough to get that split second edge.
Bob
I can't believe I got this far down the page before anyone mentioned that it's a unit of mass and not weight.
Bob
Bob
No I'm not a troll and I understand the history. Just that I don't recognise the authority of the OSI to define such terms. I've been through this on another thread with Bruce Perens here and he couldn't come up with any valid reasons that I (or others) could see for claiming that authority.
Bob
We've had this discussion before, and the OSI have *absolutely* no authority to claim any ownership on the term or definition open source. Open source to me (and most other people) means that the source is available for examination. End of story.
I'm beginning to get to the end of my tether with the zealotry and politics involved in the FOSS community. It's rapidly becoming a cult where no sense can be talked to the brainwashed members.
Bob
The problem I thnk a lot of people have with the FSF and GPL is that it's moving away from a "this will protect your code whilst allowing others to use it" licence, to a "we have a philosophy about how the software should be used" license. This is why I have removed the "and any later version" clause from my GPL v2 code, and why these restrictions are being placed in other licenses.
It's not that people like me don't want to share the code, just that we don't want to join the Cult of the Gnu either. For it is, almost, turning into a religious issue of whether you swallow the FSF dogma, rather than a practical one of whether you just want other people to benefit from the code.
Bob
Personally, I'm seeing a migration away from Linux onto Macs over here in the UK. I was a regular Linux user myself (as in my only OS) from Mandrake 8 all the way through to Ubuntu Dapper Drake. But in November I got myself a MacBook and haven't looked back. Amongst my peers I'm also seeing this trend.
Bob
The TFA says that the distros are in fact distributing the codecs without the required licenses for the USA and that a warning is shown before they are installed. What I'm saying is that the installer could use the current locale to determine whether that warning is required, and if it is, provide more country specific information. It wouldn't be hard to implement.
Bob
Why don't the Linux vendors just detect what locale you've chosen in the install and show the legalese accordingly? Then those who live in countries where it isn't illegal (ie. most of the world) don't have to see a scary message. On top of that, they could name the countries where it is illegal and explain why. That way those who have to see the message know exactly why they're being shown it, and maybe target their annoyance at the correct people.
Bob
OK, it's your box. But it's their service that you're connecting to with your box. They have the right to limit access to that service if you change the original software. It's easier for them if they just make it so that modified software doesn't run, rather than trying to detect modified software. It's simple practicality and perfectly reasonable, not matter how many times you say "fuck".
Bob
Bob
Bob
Now THAT is exactly what I've been trying to say, but expressed in a much more eloquent way than I could have. I agree with every word. Bravo.
Bob
That's exactly my point. Why shouldn't they be able to do that? As long as the source is available (which they would still be required to provide - as TiVo are as well) then that seems to me to be the license that I originally gave it.
BTW, I would have been happy with the BSD license. I use the Apache license on some of my other stuff, but my Sudoku program contains a couple of algorithms (to do with generating symmetrical Sudokus) I took from another GPLv2 project and I cannot change the license on those.
Bob
...I don't agree with the new clauses in GPLv3 as opposed to GPLv2 and although my current licenses contain the "or higher" clause, I am going to be removing that in the coming weeks and leaving the code at GPLv2 only.
I'm paricularly against the "Tivoization" clause and cannot for the life of me see what benefits it gives to the copyright holder or user of the code. All it seems to do as far as I can see is take away the freedom to use my code in the way I originally granted.
Bob
You need to learn what a race is - hint, it has nothing to do with skin colour (Pakistanis and Arabs are Caucasoid for example). The Japanese are part of the Mongoloid race. There are only 2 (or 3 if you count Australian Aboriginals) others - Negroid and Caucasoid.
Bob
That's not what the GP means. Over here it's common to be able to buy your phone without having to enter into a contract with any of the service providers. This means that if you want to change providers, you just substitue the SIM card and that's it. No lock ins. It would be a deal breaker for me if I couldn't do this as well, as in my case I only use pay-as-you-go plans. I don't enter into contracts with phone operators. Basically, I require to be able to just stick the SIM from my current phone into the iPhone and keep the same number and plan. That, at least, is what most people in the UK would expect to be able to do IMO.
Bob
Trademark law. You might want to look it up some day, but it grants the legal authority because they first came up with the term. I wonder if it hasn't become somewhat generic by now, but that's a legal worry and it's not mine.
I'm from the UK. US trademark law does not apply here. Here you have to actively register a trademark. They haven't. Therefore I, personally, do not recognise that mark.
Bob
Sorry, but I don't recognise yours or the OSIs authority in this matter. Also, I agree with the grandparent, open source to me means that the source code is available, nothing more, and nothing less. The term does not define that certain freedoms are available with the source code, indeed it cannot given that even under the OSI approved licenses those freedoms vary wildly. In essence, the only constant I see amongst even the official definition is that the code is available - therefore that is what the term means to me (and I assume most other people outside of the "community").
Bob