damn that sucks! It must take a brave individual to be an admin in the manifold room. Just think, with each valve you never know if you are blessing the world with Halle Berry nudes or a goatse flood. My what pressure in those tubes!
This makes perfect sense and explains the ability of cannabis plants (which are normally gendered) to pass on hermaphroditism to their offspring. The plants begin as male, female, or hermaphrodite (like almost all other plants). Exposed to conditions which do not occur in nature, either male or female plants will produce a flower of the opposite gender under stress. Usually a female is observed since cannabis is generally cultivated for unpollinated female flowers. The seeds produced by pollinating a female flower with the male flower of such a plant have a greatly increased liklihood of producing naturally hermaphrodite offspring.
From what I have read the DNA to produce either gender of flower is present in both sexes and the opposite gender flower simply isn't an active gene. When a plant like this becomes a hermaphrodite it activates these characteristics in its DNA.
Of course cannabis cultivators have known this since at least the 60's and there had to be a few researchers among them. They likely just forgot to publish it.;)
I don't know about the study but this effect can be readily observed in cannabis plants. Cannabis plants have a differentiated gender, unlike most plants there is a distinct male and distinct female.
Under stress a female plant can become a hermaphrodite by producing one or more male flowers (there are chemicals to induce this or erratic light patterns or keeping the plant alive under artificial lighting for extreme lengths of time without fertilization). That plant can self pollinate or pollinate another female.
In the cannabis world the seeds from such a union are prized because they grow all female plants (unfertilized female flowers are the only part of the plant that is smoked)but there is a well known side effect of this process. The seeds have a significant chance of being hermaphrodites without any of the stresses that caused the condition in the mother plant.
Wanting long term is an example of insanity (and ignorance) on the part of a male. We aren't designed for it biologically for starters. More importantly, I've found attractive women and intelligent women, and women who are both but I've yet to find a sane woman. The level of insanity you have to deal with increases right along with the level of commitment you've made (why this is nobody can say).
So in light of all that, if you are really serious about something long term go for dumb and attractive so that you have no troubles talking her into a pre-nup. That way she won't take all your worldly possessions when you trade her in for a younger model;)
If that is an accurate summary of the feature then I doubt it explains this issue.
On Linux your system doesn't swap anything out of memory unless your memory utilization so high that the system has to. This is one of the reasons that Linux is faster than Windows in general.
Unless they were running their test rig with 256mb ram (or the test suite uses large quantities of memory) a feature that optimizes swapping wouldn't impact performance on the test. That may be why they released the feature in the windows build first.
'I see, so the top 10% are taking their money and stuffing it under the mattress where it never sees the light of day. Your understanding of capitalism was born and remains in the 19th century.'
Of course not, they are investing it in other profitable ventures. Which is nice, its a recycling of sorts but unless you pretend that there are unlimited resources to go around and not a finite number of resources to be shared you realize there is a problem with this system.
In a healthy system, there would be a million small and medium sized businesses and 90% of the wealth would rest in the hands of the middle class. After all, the wealth in this nation is not limited by spending and investment, it is limited by natural and cultivated resources. You don't need super wealthy individuals and massive corporations to build on either of those things. You need a work ethic and a good education system (something the wealthy made sure was cut from the stimulus bill despite the creation of teaching jobs).
Taxes take the wealth that pools at the top and redistribute it to the middle and lower class. In the current system it will still eventually filter back to the top of course.
'Right. From each according to his means. To each according to his need. Sounds like a great plan.'
Right right, burn those damned commies, they threaten our way of life!;)
Aside from the plea to emotion by implying an association with communism do you actually have any substance to add to the conversation? Perhaps an actual reasoned argument to counter the one I gave?
Somehow I don't think using the tax system designed to pay for public services and infrastructure, to pay for said services and infrastructure, is going to mean we have to start calling one another comrade just yet.
'Company in this case is me, and almost my sole occupation for half a year so far is building this software. I'm still doing some consulting to pay for it. But the bottom line is that you can always repair an error in not giving enough away, but you can't repair giving too much away, and if I blow this I could be financially ruined.'
Its so much easier to be idealistic with someone elses money.;P There is probably a compromise to be found. Maybe the answer isn't to give more but to ask less. Generally speaking I'd say Bruce Perens is probably a more generally accepted voice of the community than Shaitand but since you're playing the role of 'the man' in this conversation... lol
I suppose it largely depends on the reasons behind this. If you are going the open route for ideological reasons then give what you are comfortable with and promise more if things do well. Be as transparent about what well is and how far along you are toward that goal as you can be along the way. This leaves you some security but once you are on solid ground lets you kick in ideal mode for the project itself.
If you are going the open route for business reasons then your business model is going to depend on free labor from contributors. You can leverage your well earned reputation to bring interest to begin with. Everything I said before is fine but the one big holdup I would have is signing over my copyright. Everything else I (and you) mentioned is really just gravy.
The copyright assignment can be fixed with a contribution license that gives you the right to distribute under other terms. You could leave it open to let you update licenses or make it a blanket irrevocable license to distribute under any terms you like. Do that and I don't even think you'd need to commit to the two years additional development or keeping the project open down the line.
Also, its really a management issue but I'd recommend any added value for the commercial package be tools that surround it rather than features of the project itself.
That leaves you open to create added incentive and value for those who pay in cash without alienating those who pay in code by giving them a reduced feature version of the project itself. It will also head off forks since major contributions won't be declined because they won't conflict with the way you are giving paying clients value.
The USPS is a private company. So is the Federal Reserve for that matter... a private bank that can purchase currency from the U.S. Mint and the real source of our weak dollar. Scary that.
The DMV is operated by the state, explaining the difference in experience (not to mention the tiny DMV office you refer to). While I'm sure employees are entitled to lunch breaks as a matter of policy (just like you or me, and just like us, the customer will have to make do with whoever is left) I doubt they are entitled to chat with boyfriends as a matter of policy anymore than at your privatized business. If you boycott either the business or the DMV for this you are a moron, this is something you report to a supervisor so they can enforce the company policies.
Of course, I've seen far more of this in private industry than public. And certainly seen the supervisor ignore the behavior more often. Unfortunately, companies have grown large enough that only the wealthy have the luxury of boycotting companies with low prices.
'"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."'
Not in a contrary with a tax system that taxes proportionately based upon wealth like that here in the U.S. Wealth is how we measure the benefits of our society, it makes sense that those who have benefitted the most should pay the most. As opposed to private corporations who charge the broke an increased rate because the wealthy can afford to create a market for goods at a higher price. Or the fees the 'free market' junkies insist on having at the DMV and tag agencies that actually force the poor to drive illegally because they are required by law to use a public service that isn't funded by public funds.
I've been to the DMV 3 times in the past year for various reasons. None of those took more than 30mins. Once I made an appointment online and the other two times I walked in and waited. The appointment was faster but really none of it was a big deal.
The only problem I had with the experience is that everything requires a fee. Public services should be paid for with public funds (ie, taxes).
internet infrastructure is probably better compared with the road system. Since better infrastructure will enable free flow of information and open (or at least expand) a new route for commerce. Just like the interstate system supports billions of dollars in private commerce.
Hopefully it will follow the path of roads too. There are a couple of big companies (which are by nature detrimental to our nation) that are ubiquitous on the interstate systems but a large portion of the commerce is spread in a healthy competitive way among the small and medium sized companies that are beneficial to our economy.
'You (the government) paying $24,500 to run a pipe to my house would be better than paying that same money to the pocket of Verizon's CEO.'
That's the funny thing. It's people like Verizon's CEO who hate this idea because the tax system is designed to spread the burden according to means. That means the fact that he earns 200 times what you do means he'll pay 200 times (nto that he works that hard) what you do toward running that pipe. Everyone with internet service subsidizes everyone else anyway, they just don't do in a way that matches their means.
Fast access internet isn't just about access to pr0n, its about access to information. Literacy, widespread and universal deployment would benefit the nation (public, private, and individual) much the way the public road system does.
Those who don't want this make all sort of arguments but what it really comes down to (at least for those who have a couple brain cells rattling around) is that when private industry does something the cost is spread equally among the wealthy and the poor. Whereas if the tax system pays for and supports the infrastructure then the cost will come from individuals in proportion to their means. Roughly 90% of the cost will come from those who hold 90+% of our wealth.
This is the same reason government organizations charge fees. If you think about it, by definition there should never be a fee for public services of any kind. The tax system exists for the purpose of funding all public services to the best of societies ability without overburdening those with little means. Fees exist (aside from a few exceptions that exist to block entry to a market) to screw with that balance and shift a disproportionate cost of public services back to those who can't afford it.
It amazes me that there are people with the conflicting idea of harsh criminal penalties (the theft of individual liberties to subject individuals to the moral rule and command of society) and the idea that disposal of personal wealth and greed is a liberty that society has no right to touch.
There are people who work hard in all walks of life and while an executive controls the flow of more wealth he works no harder and exhibits a talent no more rare than that of a hardworking and talented carpenter. Why should society allow the executive to hold enough wealth that he must be a fool to not accumulate assets and wealth and yet the carpenter must work, scrape, and be lucky (or at least not unlucky) to save enough to own his own home just in time to be too old to enjoy it and in time to waste it all on health care.
'In fact I'm rather surprised the cell phone companies aren't trying to jump into the residential data market. They already have the little notebook dongles, just shove that into an antenna you set on your roof (for better reception) and plug it into your router.'
They are and they do. But they have a more flexible service and believe its worth more than that of the phone company and cable company. In the US today there is no real competition, realistic competitors in most markets amount to a handful of companies and those companies are in the same industry. They don't even need to actually collaborate to realize that the last places they should compete are those beneficial to customers. The things which benefit consumers would result in a decrease in their profit margins, the free market (particularly the stock market) has already valued companies by anticipated profit growth rate and it isn't enough for companies to make boatloads of money anymore. As a result companies don't increase quality and reduce price, they add 'perceived value' and only resort to those other areas as a last resort.
The free market is a rigged system in which all wealth slowly sifts to the top. Everyone who isn't at the top spends their money on goods and services owned largely by those who are at the top. Some of that money is spent elsewhere but the large corporations always make a profit and the top 10% increase in wealth so they are always taking in more than the spend, siphoning off the system.
The reason they hate government spending is that it creates jobs and benefits for lower to middle class americans and pays for it with tax money (the tax system is designed to take most heavily from the top). This effectively takes some of that 90+% of our nations wealth and redistributes it back to the bottom. If there were too much of that going on then the top 10% might actually stop pooling wealth or in the true extreme we might all be well employed and middle class and gravy jobs and independent wealth didn't exist in private hands! The horror!
'I think this is some of what the MySQL folks are complaining about. Monty wants to fork it!!!!'
Yup and forks are a good thing. Alarmists talk about forks as a bad thing splintering the community but although there may be millions of forks only a deserved fork will be adopted by the community.
'I have some ideas about how to make dual licensing work better for the community. The basic problem is that they don't reliably get any commitment back from the company to whom they are turning over their work.'
I agree that would be better. But as I've said elsewhere, I would want additional assurance. First, I would grant the unlimited license to the company rather than the other way around. The only thing the company gains by having my copyright rather than that license is the ability to do something unexpected or unintended with my code. I actually wouldn't want to require DEVELOPMENT from the company for two years. Simply a legal commitment (as condition of the license) that they nor their affiliates, nor any organization that purchases the company or its trademarks may release a derivative of the software without making an identical version of the software available (with source) under an OSI approved license or whatever terms they are using when I contribute.
This isn't a dual license issue but goes hand in hand, I prefer (but do not require) the project to actually be a controlled and maintained by a community run non-profit and the for profit to be a service/support/license fee collection contractor for the non-profit. This would need to supercede any previously purchased commercial licenses by affiliates/purchasers/etc. There are probably more loopholes that need to be blocked as well.
This allows all the legitimate activities of a for profit organization using this model but bars the abuse.
It's also self policing. It is fairly simple for a commercial entity to remove all user contributions (and the obligations that come with them) until the project becomes so intertwined with community code that it doesn't really belong to the parent organization anymore.
'So, I, not being as rich as Sun Microsystems, promise this: if you sign over the copyright to your modification I will covenant to: 1) provide you an unlimited license to your own work, including the right to relicense. and 2) keep my work incorporating your work under an Open Source license for two further years of development, or remove your contribution. '
Almost as good as me providing you with an unlimited license to my work, including the right to re-license under a commercial license that you've published for my review and under the condition that said license is conditional upon an identical version of your work being licensed under an OSI approved license.;)
That allows you to sell commercial licenses but blocks you and anyone you sell out to from closing up the work. It also allows me to keep my copyright.
I used to be a big fan of the dual license approach, on the surface it seems like a great idea. But the cracks have begun to reveal themselves in the projects I would have once pointed to as fine examples of dual license in action.
Dual license projects have typically required contributors to assign the company running the project copyright. Most coders don't want to do this, especially since they could allow for the business model by contributing to the project under a more permissive license that falls far short of signing away their rights.
This model is typically used by companies that don't merely offer commercial licenses but make features available only in the commercial version. This alienates contributors who are only entitled to use the crippleware version. It also hinders development and splits the community because the company doesn't want to merge features that would make their commercial features less useful. Finally, efforts are made to deter derivatives (an essential right and power of the community required for a healthy open project) that might incorporate the features the company wants to reserve to commercial licensees.
Last but not least, the project or the company can be sold outright to parties that haven't made commitments to the community.
Dual license is a great way for someone to contribute software they are writing to the community without soliciting contributions but the moment the software stops belonging to you and people from the community are contributing, the dual license approach seems less attractive.
Slashdot Mirror
damn that sucks! It must take a brave individual to be an admin in the manifold room. Just think, with each valve you never know if you are blessing the world with Halle Berry nudes or a goatse flood. My what pressure in those tubes!
If I'm understanding this 'router' thing correctly, its like a faucet connected to the series of tubes?
If not, exactly what role does this router thing play in tube interaction?
This makes perfect sense and explains the ability of cannabis plants (which are normally gendered) to pass on hermaphroditism to their offspring. The plants begin as male, female, or hermaphrodite (like almost all other plants). Exposed to conditions which do not occur in nature, either male or female plants will produce a flower of the opposite gender under stress. Usually a female is observed since cannabis is generally cultivated for unpollinated female flowers. The seeds produced by pollinating a female flower with the male flower of such a plant have a greatly increased liklihood of producing naturally hermaphrodite offspring.
From what I have read the DNA to produce either gender of flower is present in both sexes and the opposite gender flower simply isn't an active gene. When a plant like this becomes a hermaphrodite it activates these characteristics in its DNA.
Of course cannabis cultivators have known this since at least the 60's and there had to be a few researchers among them. They likely just forgot to publish it. ;)
I don't know about humans but plants certainly pass learned traits to their seed. This can be readily observed.
I don't know about the study but this effect can be readily observed in cannabis plants. Cannabis plants have a differentiated gender, unlike most plants there is a distinct male and distinct female.
Under stress a female plant can become a hermaphrodite by producing one or more male flowers (there are chemicals to induce this or erratic light patterns or keeping the plant alive under artificial lighting for extreme lengths of time without fertilization). That plant can self pollinate or pollinate another female.
In the cannabis world the seeds from such a union are prized because they grow all female plants (unfertilized female flowers are the only part of the plant that is smoked)but there is a well known side effect of this process. The seeds have a significant chance of being hermaphrodites without any of the stresses that caused the condition in the mother plant.
'If you want long term'
Wanting long term is an example of insanity (and ignorance) on the part of a male. We aren't designed for it biologically for starters. More importantly, I've found attractive women and intelligent women, and women who are both but I've yet to find a sane woman. The level of insanity you have to deal with increases right along with the level of commitment you've made (why this is nobody can say).
So in light of all that, if you are really serious about something long term go for dumb and attractive so that you have no troubles talking her into a pre-nup. That way she won't take all your worldly possessions when you trade her in for a younger model ;)
I don't believe I've met a sane woman yet. But I'd take attractive and sane if I ever found that combination ;)
Except that in software you want all three, only option 1 and 3 are needed in a woman. Option 2 just makes it more difficult to get laid.
If that is an accurate summary of the feature then I doubt it explains this issue.
On Linux your system doesn't swap anything out of memory unless your memory utilization so high that the system has to. This is one of the reasons that Linux is faster than Windows in general.
Unless they were running their test rig with 256mb ram (or the test suite uses large quantities of memory) a feature that optimizes swapping wouldn't impact performance on the test. That may be why they released the feature in the windows build first.
'I see, so the top 10% are taking their money and stuffing it under the mattress where it never sees the light of day. Your understanding of capitalism was born and remains in the 19th century.'
Of course not, they are investing it in other profitable ventures. Which is nice, its a recycling of sorts but unless you pretend that there are unlimited resources to go around and not a finite number of resources to be shared you realize there is a problem with this system.
In a healthy system, there would be a million small and medium sized businesses and 90% of the wealth would rest in the hands of the middle class. After all, the wealth in this nation is not limited by spending and investment, it is limited by natural and cultivated resources. You don't need super wealthy individuals and massive corporations to build on either of those things. You need a work ethic and a good education system (something the wealthy made sure was cut from the stimulus bill despite the creation of teaching jobs).
Taxes take the wealth that pools at the top and redistribute it to the middle and lower class. In the current system it will still eventually filter back to the top of course.
'Right. From each according to his means. To each according to his need. Sounds like a great plan.'
Right right, burn those damned commies, they threaten our way of life! ;)
Aside from the plea to emotion by implying an association with communism do you actually have any substance to add to the conversation? Perhaps an actual reasoned argument to counter the one I gave?
Somehow I don't think using the tax system designed to pay for public services and infrastructure, to pay for said services and infrastructure, is going to mean we have to start calling one another comrade just yet.
'Company in this case is me, and almost my sole occupation for half a year so far is building this software. I'm still doing some consulting to pay for it. But the bottom line is that you can always repair an error in not giving enough away, but you can't repair giving too much away, and if I blow this I could be financially ruined.'
Its so much easier to be idealistic with someone elses money. ;P There is probably a compromise to be found. Maybe the answer isn't to give more but to ask less. Generally speaking I'd say Bruce Perens is probably a more generally accepted voice of the community than Shaitand but since you're playing the role of 'the man' in this conversation... lol
I suppose it largely depends on the reasons behind this. If you are going the open route for ideological reasons then give what you are comfortable with and promise more if things do well. Be as transparent about what well is and how far along you are toward that goal as you can be along the way. This leaves you some security but once you are on solid ground lets you kick in ideal mode for the project itself.
If you are going the open route for business reasons then your business model is going to depend on free labor from contributors. You can leverage your well earned reputation to bring interest to begin with. Everything I said before is fine but the one big holdup I would have is signing over my copyright. Everything else I (and you) mentioned is really just gravy.
The copyright assignment can be fixed with a contribution license that gives you the right to distribute under other terms. You could leave it open to let you update licenses or make it a blanket irrevocable license to distribute under any terms you like. Do that and I don't even think you'd need to commit to the two years additional development or keeping the project open down the line.
Also, its really a management issue but I'd recommend any added value for the commercial package be tools that surround it rather than features of the project itself.
That leaves you open to create added incentive and value for those who pay in cash without alienating those who pay in code by giving them a reduced feature version of the project itself. It will also head off forks since major contributions won't be declined because they won't conflict with the way you are giving paying clients value.
Whatever you do I hope it works out for you.
The USPS is a private company. So is the Federal Reserve for that matter... a private bank that can purchase currency from the U.S. Mint and the real source of our weak dollar. Scary that.
The DMV is operated by the state, explaining the difference in experience (not to mention the tiny DMV office you refer to). While I'm sure employees are entitled to lunch breaks as a matter of policy (just like you or me, and just like us, the customer will have to make do with whoever is left) I doubt they are entitled to chat with boyfriends as a matter of policy anymore than at your privatized business. If you boycott either the business or the DMV for this you are a moron, this is something you report to a supervisor so they can enforce the company policies.
Of course, I've seen far more of this in private industry than public. And certainly seen the supervisor ignore the behavior more often. Unfortunately, companies have grown large enough that only the wealthy have the luxury of boycotting companies with low prices.
'"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."'
Not in a contrary with a tax system that taxes proportionately based upon wealth like that here in the U.S. Wealth is how we measure the benefits of our society, it makes sense that those who have benefitted the most should pay the most. As opposed to private corporations who charge the broke an increased rate because the wealthy can afford to create a market for goods at a higher price. Or the fees the 'free market' junkies insist on having at the DMV and tag agencies that actually force the poor to drive illegally because they are required by law to use a public service that isn't funded by public funds.
I've been to the DMV 3 times in the past year for various reasons. None of those took more than 30mins. Once I made an appointment online and the other two times I walked in and waited. The appointment was faster but really none of it was a big deal.
The only problem I had with the experience is that everything requires a fee. Public services should be paid for with public funds (ie, taxes).
That's pretty lousy, but then 10mbps isn't a great infrastructure pipe and those numbers are from 2005.
internet infrastructure is probably better compared with the road system. Since better infrastructure will enable free flow of information and open (or at least expand) a new route for commerce. Just like the interstate system supports billions of dollars in private commerce.
Hopefully it will follow the path of roads too. There are a couple of big companies (which are by nature detrimental to our nation) that are ubiquitous on the interstate systems but a large portion of the commerce is spread in a healthy competitive way among the small and medium sized companies that are beneficial to our economy.
'You (the government) paying $24,500 to run a pipe to my house would be better than paying that same money to the pocket of Verizon's CEO.'
That's the funny thing. It's people like Verizon's CEO who hate this idea because the tax system is designed to spread the burden according to means. That means the fact that he earns 200 times what you do means he'll pay 200 times (nto that he works that hard) what you do toward running that pipe. Everyone with internet service subsidizes everyone else anyway, they just don't do in a way that matches their means.
Fast access internet isn't just about access to pr0n, its about access to information. Literacy, widespread and universal deployment would benefit the nation (public, private, and individual) much the way the public road system does.
Those who don't want this make all sort of arguments but what it really comes down to (at least for those who have a couple brain cells rattling around) is that when private industry does something the cost is spread equally among the wealthy and the poor. Whereas if the tax system pays for and supports the infrastructure then the cost will come from individuals in proportion to their means. Roughly 90% of the cost will come from those who hold 90+% of our wealth.
This is the same reason government organizations charge fees. If you think about it, by definition there should never be a fee for public services of any kind. The tax system exists for the purpose of funding all public services to the best of societies ability without overburdening those with little means. Fees exist (aside from a few exceptions that exist to block entry to a market) to screw with that balance and shift a disproportionate cost of public services back to those who can't afford it.
It amazes me that there are people with the conflicting idea of harsh criminal penalties (the theft of individual liberties to subject individuals to the moral rule and command of society) and the idea that disposal of personal wealth and greed is a liberty that society has no right to touch.
There are people who work hard in all walks of life and while an executive controls the flow of more wealth he works no harder and exhibits a talent no more rare than that of a hardworking and talented carpenter. Why should society allow the executive to hold enough wealth that he must be a fool to not accumulate assets and wealth and yet the carpenter must work, scrape, and be lucky (or at least not unlucky) to save enough to own his own home just in time to be too old to enjoy it and in time to waste it all on health care.
'In fact I'm rather surprised the cell phone companies aren't trying to jump into the residential data market. They already have the little notebook dongles, just shove that into an antenna you set on your roof (for better reception) and plug it into your router.'
They are and they do. But they have a more flexible service and believe its worth more than that of the phone company and cable company. In the US today there is no real competition, realistic competitors in most markets amount to a handful of companies and those companies are in the same industry. They don't even need to actually collaborate to realize that the last places they should compete are those beneficial to customers. The things which benefit consumers would result in a decrease in their profit margins, the free market (particularly the stock market) has already valued companies by anticipated profit growth rate and it isn't enough for companies to make boatloads of money anymore. As a result companies don't increase quality and reduce price, they add 'perceived value' and only resort to those other areas as a last resort.
The free market is a rigged system in which all wealth slowly sifts to the top. Everyone who isn't at the top spends their money on goods and services owned largely by those who are at the top. Some of that money is spent elsewhere but the large corporations always make a profit and the top 10% increase in wealth so they are always taking in more than the spend, siphoning off the system.
The reason they hate government spending is that it creates jobs and benefits for lower to middle class americans and pays for it with tax money (the tax system is designed to take most heavily from the top). This effectively takes some of that 90+% of our nations wealth and redistributes it back to the bottom. If there were too much of that going on then the top 10% might actually stop pooling wealth or in the true extreme we might all be well employed and middle class and gravy jobs and independent wealth didn't exist in private hands! The horror!
'I think this is some of what the MySQL folks are complaining about. Monty wants to fork it!!!!'
Yup and forks are a good thing. Alarmists talk about forks as a bad thing splintering the community but although there may be millions of forks only a deserved fork will be adopted by the community.
'I have some ideas about how to make dual licensing work better for the community. The basic problem is that they don't reliably get any commitment back from the company to whom they are turning over their work.'
I agree that would be better. But as I've said elsewhere, I would want additional assurance. First, I would grant the unlimited license to the company rather than the other way around. The only thing the company gains by having my copyright rather than that license is the ability to do something unexpected or unintended with my code. I actually wouldn't want to require DEVELOPMENT from the company for two years. Simply a legal commitment (as condition of the license) that they nor their affiliates, nor any organization that purchases the company or its trademarks may release a derivative of the software without making an identical version of the software available (with source) under an OSI approved license or whatever terms they are using when I contribute.
This isn't a dual license issue but goes hand in hand, I prefer (but do not require) the project to actually be a controlled and maintained by a community run non-profit and the for profit to be a service/support/license fee collection contractor for the non-profit. This would need to supercede any previously purchased commercial licenses by affiliates/purchasers/etc. There are probably more loopholes that need to be blocked as well.
This allows all the legitimate activities of a for profit organization using this model but bars the abuse.
It's also self policing. It is fairly simple for a commercial entity to remove all user contributions (and the obligations that come with them) until the project becomes so intertwined with community code that it doesn't really belong to the parent organization anymore.
www.slashdot.org loads just fine but slashdot.org gives a 500 internal server error.
'So, I, not being as rich as Sun Microsystems, promise this: if you sign over the copyright to your modification I will covenant to: 1) provide you an unlimited license to your own work, including the right to relicense. and 2) keep my work incorporating your work under an Open Source license for two further years of development, or remove your contribution. '
Almost as good as me providing you with an unlimited license to my work, including the right to re-license under a commercial license that you've published for my review and under the condition that said license is conditional upon an identical version of your work being licensed under an OSI approved license. ;)
That allows you to sell commercial licenses but blocks you and anyone you sell out to from closing up the work. It also allows me to keep my copyright.
I used to be a big fan of the dual license approach, on the surface it seems like a great idea. But the cracks have begun to reveal themselves in the projects I would have once pointed to as fine examples of dual license in action.
Dual license projects have typically required contributors to assign the company running the project copyright. Most coders don't want to do this, especially since they could allow for the business model by contributing to the project under a more permissive license that falls far short of signing away their rights.
This model is typically used by companies that don't merely offer commercial licenses but make features available only in the commercial version. This alienates contributors who are only entitled to use the crippleware version. It also hinders development and splits the community because the company doesn't want to merge features that would make their commercial features less useful. Finally, efforts are made to deter derivatives (an essential right and power of the community required for a healthy open project) that might incorporate the features the company wants to reserve to commercial licensees.
Last but not least, the project or the company can be sold outright to parties that haven't made commitments to the community.
Dual license is a great way for someone to contribute software they are writing to the community without soliciting contributions but the moment the software stops belonging to you and people from the community are contributing, the dual license approach seems less attractive.
Just my 2 cents.