Sorry, there's one other good justification for GPL: if you're reusing other people's software that's already GPLed. Which is basically what he's doing. He didn't chose GPL, the authors of the software he's combining did.
He calls himself "a serious Stallmanite" (his word), and has chosen the GPL for his software in the hopes that it will therefore help the greatest number of people.
Then he's a fool. All things being equal, a non-copyleft license will always benefit more people than a GPL license, because more people can use it. Don't get me wrong, I agree with copyleft, but the only justification is reciprocity (my work's free, so yours must be too). If that's not your justification, GPL is the wrong license for you.
Because you're a bigot, basically. Everyone deserves to paid for their labour. If they're no good at, they deserve a lower wage, certainly, but if they're not good enough to be of value to you, just don't hire them -- problem solved. But your "they don't deserve it" argument is essentially "I deserve their work for free".
You seem to forget that the laws are there to keep people from killing each other. Not to make things optimally efficient. I'm still a wild animal. I'm allowed to pee in the woods with all of the other wild animals.
You seem to forget that this isn't true. You believe laws should be for that, but most of us disagree. Laws are an integral part of a society and its identity. For some societies, killing may be considered normal, and things like regulations for fair duels could easily be codified in law... and indeed in many countries, they were, up until a mere couple of centuries ago. And with death penalties, army regulations etc, a lot of current laws still lead to death, not prevent it.
Laws can and do serve to make things efficient. They stop us having to renegotiate every contract from zero.
actually, I'm the third. I'm the business owner who spend about a decade being underpaid because I was a young and small company. It's called paying your dues. I've become a well-off and successful small business. Young people don't deserve to be paid for their labour. They aren't any good at it. They don't deserve anything, they don't know anything and they aren't taking any risk. they don't DESERVE anything because no one does. You don't have the right to a job.
Replace "young people" with the N word and you've just mounted a civil war era defense for the continuation of slavery....
That defense didn't work for the cannibal who had evidence of consent from his... hmm... I can't say "victim", if it was consentual... so... meal...? Yes, that's the word. His "meal" agreed to be eaten, and this permission was not disputed in court, but he was still found guilty as you cannot contract yourself out of the basic laws of the land.
These are contractual matters that the intern agreed to prior to starting the program. Before he was required by his school to take an internship, they told him that "taking in internship is part of the program". Don't go there if you don't accept the program. Unlike slavery or indentured servitude, there is no requirement to go to that school or agree to that program.
I will hazard a guess and suggest that your profession is "conman", because what you are proposing is that any contract, however exploitative, is good. Which is the basis of the con man's art: get someone to agree to something that is not in their interests.
But what if their work is not realistically worth even the minimum wage to the employer? What if they can get a more experienced person for the minimum wage instead of a dumb kid who never did any work in their life?
If it's not worth minimum wage, it's not worth doing.
The only exception is for pure learning projects, which is what unpaid internships are supposed to be.
Holy shit, I QUOTED that sentence. Did you miss the word "EMPLOYEES"? I guess so.
Now read this sentence:
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) defines employment very broadly, i.e., "to suffer or permit to work."
Now read THIS sentence, which is in the same link:
However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the FLSA was not intended "to stamp all persons as employees who without any express or implied compensation agreement might work for their own advantage on the premises of another."
The word you're failing to take into account here is "premises". Working "on someone's premises" is not the same as "in someone's business". An intern doing actual work (as opposed to training projects) is not working independently on someone else's premise (eg instore concession counter) but is working directly within and for the benefit of his business.
The point of the Supreme Court's statement was that an instore concession holder that makes no money can't claim to be an employee of the store and sue for wages, and a tradesman sharing a workshop with another similarly can't claim wages if his business isn't making enough money.
That may be true. But in a free society, they would have been paid exactly what they contracted for before they started the internship. The rights of the two parties to the contract would have had some significance, and a court would not come in later and overturn an agreement between two free people who voluntarily entered an agreement for legal activities.
Key word: some significances. Key word: legal activities.
Corporations exist solely by virtue of Nanny State interference in the operations of the Free Market.
Are you mental? Are you seriously suggesting that the government isn't already protecting you from some of the worst excesses of corporatism? Like, you know, exploiting people desperate for work experience and turning them into an unpaid labour force? Not sure where I got that particular example from, though....
As a free person, I should be able to offer my labor to another for whatever compensation I find sufficient, and I should not then be able to retroactively sue that person for pay for doing something I agreed I would do for free.
As free people, Mexicans should be able to cross the border at will and offer their labour for what they find sufficient. This is guaranteed to be less than what you find sufficient, so welcome to the unemployed.
Strong employment laws really do help the workers, you know....
As a volunteer, I am not an employee. If you read the second sentence of what you cite:
However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the FLSA was not intended "to stamp all persons as employees who without any express or implied compensation agreement might work for their own advantage on the premises of another."
"Work for their own advantage on the premises of another." So an independent hairdresser can operate out of the spare chair in another hairdresser's salon, or a self-employed mechanic can use the spare maintenance pit in another guy's workshop without claiming to be an employee. In such cases, the direct benefit of work is only to the worker (and his/her customers) and the host only gets the indirect benefit of increased footfall. The fight starts when the host organisation expands, and needs the chair or the pit back. At that point the guest says "you can't chuck me out" and the other guy says "look at your lease" and so the guest tries to claim rights on th grounds that "working here"="employee".
But a coffee boy is not a self-employed tradesman, and it's the host organisation that gains the benefit from having a free coffee boy.
The system shouldn't be set up to essentially require people to volunteer in order to get experience...but it's basically impossible to prevent people from volunteering _should they so choose_.
No it's not, and half the world have codified this in law. If it's for profit, you're not allowed to use voluntary labour. (I often wonder when somebody's going to make an issue of the "volunteer translations" of Google, Facebook etc -- illegal actions in most of the civilised world....)
While the judge was correct that the measure of benefit to the intern vs to the company was subjective, the company was correct that that's really what matters here. If you have to pay interns $10/hr, suddenly they're not competing with other interns. They're competing with young adult job applicants who probably already have work experience doing the job. Why would a company hire the intern instead of the experienced applicant? This decision will not just cause interns to be paid. It will cause a reduction in the number of internships available. Effectively, the subjective decision the judge complained about will be taken out of the court's hands, and be made within the company before they ever offer an internship.
If it's a $10ph job for an experienced applicant, it's not going to provide any useful experience for a student or graduate, so they can just go pay for a runner instead.
If someone wants to volunteer for a position on their own time, then that's okay--but that's not what I'd call an internship position, and the system shouldn't be set up to have people needing to volunteer full-time.
That's not OK, because then you have companies exploiting the constant stream of desperate unemployed people looking to get the experience that gets them their next job.
And who are you to decide that rather than the employer and the employee involved? You learn a lot just from being on a movie set, working in a hospital, or in a senator's office or in a science lab. These are experiences that are extremely hard to get and valuable and many people will gladly do them for free without any of your additional arbitrary conditions.
Yes, and you're still allowed to "just be on a movie set", because "just being" isn't working. It's the working that's the problem, because there you are, in front of people making millions of dollars, and they're trying to save $10 an hour on a runner by getting you to do it instead...? That's pathetic, really....
All this means is that there will be fewer internships, thus fewer opportunities for unskilled students (or otherwise) to gain experience. Keep in mind that these students are working of their own free will.
There will be fewer internships, because the crappy worthless ones will be axed. There will not be fewer opportunities for students to gain experience, because the genuine internships — the ones that are not-for-business-gain and the ones that are for business gain, but paid — will continue. So there will be just as much experience gained, although there will be fewer internships on CVs. Which will not only stop the exploitation, but it will make having an internship on your CV more attractive to potential employers, because it will now say you have actual real experience in something more useful than running down to the local store for a box of donuts and a 6 pack of Mountain Dew....
Try having a look at a country where this has long been established in law, and you'll find internships are flourishing.
What we've said goodbye to is the exploitation of free labour to do menial tasks that offered no real benefit to the intern. There's a great scheme in Scotland where the enterprise development agency funds internships for students/recent graduates at new startups. There are strict conditions attached to the money, as the internship has to be directly related to a specific project, so that the intern is exposed to the full lifecycle and gets genuine experience to talk about at interview. This gives the businesses the opportunity to take a chance on something new or different, benefiting everyone. (Normally.) In fact, there's a great history of companies taking on their interns after, as these companies are at a stage of rapid expansion.
You realize the pressure is the same 10ft down pipe full of salt water as 10ft down the ocean? How nasty the tides would be would largely be a reflection of how deep and wide the channel opening was. Not any worse then the mouth of any river or other estuary.
Yes, I realise this. Do you realise that the volume of water in a ten foot pipe is a lot less than the volume of water in ten feet of ocean? The difference between high tide and low tide in Rance, Brittany, France, is on average 8m and the tidal barrage there generates 240 MW by retaining water/void in an area of 9 square miles. Now even if the tidal drop between the Carribean Sea and the Pacific isn't quite as high as the tidal bore at Rance, you're replacing a 9 sq mi lagoon with hundreds of miles of ocean -- unimaginable billions of tons of water all attempting to level off to the same height as the other side.
Slashdot Mirror
In both cases, you'd be enslaving a sentient being of equal or (probably) greater intelligence than yourself.
Do you mean aliens? And if so, is that Mexicans or little green men?
Sorry, there's one other good justification for GPL: if you're reusing other people's software that's already GPLed. Which is basically what he's doing. He didn't chose GPL, the authors of the software he's combining did.
He calls himself "a serious Stallmanite" (his word), and has chosen the GPL for his software in the hopes that it will therefore help the greatest number of people.
Then he's a fool. All things being equal, a non-copyleft license will always benefit more people than a GPL license, because more people can use it. Don't get me wrong, I agree with copyleft, but the only justification is reciprocity (my work's free, so yours must be too). If that's not your justification, GPL is the wrong license for you.
Because you're a bigot, basically. Everyone deserves to paid for their labour. If they're no good at, they deserve a lower wage, certainly, but if they're not good enough to be of value to you, just don't hire them -- problem solved. But your "they don't deserve it" argument is essentially "I deserve their work for free".
You seem to forget that the laws are there to keep people from killing each other. Not to make things optimally efficient. I'm still a wild animal. I'm allowed to pee in the woods with all of the other wild animals.
You seem to forget that this isn't true. You believe laws should be for that, but most of us disagree. Laws are an integral part of a society and its identity. For some societies, killing may be considered normal, and things like regulations for fair duels could easily be codified in law... and indeed in many countries, they were, up until a mere couple of centuries ago. And with death penalties, army regulations etc, a lot of current laws still lead to death, not prevent it.
Laws can and do serve to make things efficient. They stop us having to renegotiate every contract from zero.
actually, I'm the third. I'm the business owner who spend about a decade being underpaid because I was a young and small company. It's called paying your dues. I've become a well-off and successful small business. Young people don't deserve to be paid for their labour. They aren't any good at it. They don't deserve anything, they don't know anything and they aren't taking any risk. they don't DESERVE anything because no one does. You don't have the right to a job.
Replace "young people" with the N word and you've just mounted a civil war era defense for the continuation of slavery....
I agreed to it going in. that's no illegal.
That defense didn't work for the cannibal who had evidence of consent from his... hmm... I can't say "victim", if it was consentual... so... meal...? Yes, that's the word. His "meal" agreed to be eaten, and this permission was not disputed in court, but he was still found guilty as you cannot contract yourself out of the basic laws of the land.
Why shoudl it both be paid, and produce less than 0 total work?
It shouldn't. But if it produces more than zero work, it should be paid. In this case, it produced work, so the judge ruled it should be paid.
Stop polluting a good argument with historically accurate educated fact! You're destroying people's hard-earned ignorance!
These are contractual matters that the intern agreed to prior to starting the program. Before he was required by his school to take an internship, they told him that "taking in internship is part of the program". Don't go there if you don't accept the program. Unlike slavery or indentured servitude, there is no requirement to go to that school or agree to that program.
I will hazard a guess and suggest that your profession is "conman", because what you are proposing is that any contract, however exploitative, is good. Which is the basis of the con man's art: get someone to agree to something that is not in their interests.
But what if their work is not realistically worth even the minimum wage to the employer? What if they can get a more experienced person for the minimum wage instead of a dumb kid who never did any work in their life?
If it's not worth minimum wage, it's not worth doing.
The only exception is for pure learning projects, which is what unpaid internships are supposed to be.
But if exercising that ability destroys your future job prospects, then the actual difference is minimal.
More than that: if exercising that ability destroys *everyone's* future job prospects, things are really wrong. Free labour skews the labour markets.
Holy shit, I QUOTED that sentence. Did you miss the word "EMPLOYEES"? I guess so.
Now read this sentence: The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) defines employment very broadly, i.e., "to suffer or permit to work."
Now read THIS sentence, which is in the same link:
The word you're failing to take into account here is "premises". Working "on someone's premises" is not the same as "in someone's business". An intern doing actual work (as opposed to training projects) is not working independently on someone else's premise (eg instore concession counter) but is working directly within and for the benefit of his business.
The point of the Supreme Court's statement was that an instore concession holder that makes no money can't claim to be an employee of the store and sue for wages, and a tradesman sharing a workshop with another similarly can't claim wages if his business isn't making enough money.
That may be true. But in a free society, they would have been paid exactly what they contracted for before they started the internship. The rights of the two parties to the contract would have had some significance, and a court would not come in later and overturn an agreement between two free people who voluntarily entered an agreement for legal activities.
Key word: some significances. Key word: legal activities.
Corporations exist solely by virtue of Nanny State interference in the operations of the Free Market.
Are you mental? Are you seriously suggesting that the government isn't already protecting you from some of the worst excesses of corporatism? Like, you know, exploiting people desperate for work experience and turning them into an unpaid labour force? Not sure where I got that particular example from, though....
As a free person, I should be able to offer my labor to another for whatever compensation I find sufficient, and I should not then be able to retroactively sue that person for pay for doing something I agreed I would do for free.
As free people, Mexicans should be able to cross the border at will and offer their labour for what they find sufficient. This is guaranteed to be less than what you find sufficient, so welcome to the unemployed.
Strong employment laws really do help the workers, you know....
As a volunteer, I am not an employee. If you read the second sentence of what you cite:
However, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the FLSA was not intended "to stamp all persons as employees who without any express or implied compensation agreement might work for their own advantage on the premises of another."
"Work for their own advantage on the premises of another." So an independent hairdresser can operate out of the spare chair in another hairdresser's salon, or a self-employed mechanic can use the spare maintenance pit in another guy's workshop without claiming to be an employee. In such cases, the direct benefit of work is only to the worker (and his/her customers) and the host only gets the indirect benefit of increased footfall. The fight starts when the host organisation expands, and needs the chair or the pit back. At that point the guest says "you can't chuck me out" and the other guy says "look at your lease" and so the guest tries to claim rights on th grounds that "working here"="employee".
But a coffee boy is not a self-employed tradesman, and it's the host organisation that gains the benefit from having a free coffee boy.
The system shouldn't be set up to essentially require people to volunteer in order to get experience...but it's basically impossible to prevent people from volunteering _should they so choose_.
No it's not, and half the world have codified this in law. If it's for profit, you're not allowed to use voluntary labour. (I often wonder when somebody's going to make an issue of the "volunteer translations" of Google, Facebook etc -- illegal actions in most of the civilised world....)
While the judge was correct that the measure of benefit to the intern vs to the company was subjective, the company was correct that that's really what matters here. If you have to pay interns $10/hr, suddenly they're not competing with other interns. They're competing with young adult job applicants who probably already have work experience doing the job. Why would a company hire the intern instead of the experienced applicant? This decision will not just cause interns to be paid. It will cause a reduction in the number of internships available. Effectively, the subjective decision the judge complained about will be taken out of the court's hands, and be made within the company before they ever offer an internship.
If it's a $10ph job for an experienced applicant, it's not going to provide any useful experience for a student or graduate, so they can just go pay for a runner instead.
If someone wants to volunteer for a position on their own time, then that's okay--but that's not what I'd call an internship position, and the system shouldn't be set up to have people needing to volunteer full-time.
That's not OK, because then you have companies exploiting the constant stream of desperate unemployed people looking to get the experience that gets them their next job.
And who are you to decide that rather than the employer and the employee involved? You learn a lot just from being on a movie set, working in a hospital, or in a senator's office or in a science lab. These are experiences that are extremely hard to get and valuable and many people will gladly do them for free without any of your additional arbitrary conditions.
Yes, and you're still allowed to "just be on a movie set", because "just being" isn't working. It's the working that's the problem, because there you are, in front of people making millions of dollars, and they're trying to save $10 an hour on a runner by getting you to do it instead...? That's pathetic, really....
All this means is that there will be fewer internships, thus fewer opportunities for unskilled students (or otherwise) to gain experience. Keep in mind that these students are working of their own free will.
There will be fewer internships, because the crappy worthless ones will be axed. There will not be fewer opportunities for students to gain experience, because the genuine internships — the ones that are not-for-business-gain and the ones that are for business gain, but paid — will continue. So there will be just as much experience gained, although there will be fewer internships on CVs. Which will not only stop the exploitation, but it will make having an internship on your CV more attractive to potential employers, because it will now say you have actual real experience in something more useful than running down to the local store for a box of donuts and a 6 pack of Mountain Dew....
Well, say goodbye to internships...
Try having a look at a country where this has long been established in law, and you'll find internships are flourishing.
What we've said goodbye to is the exploitation of free labour to do menial tasks that offered no real benefit to the intern. There's a great scheme in Scotland where the enterprise development agency funds internships for students/recent graduates at new startups. There are strict conditions attached to the money, as the internship has to be directly related to a specific project, so that the intern is exposed to the full lifecycle and gets genuine experience to talk about at interview. This gives the businesses the opportunity to take a chance on something new or different, benefiting everyone. (Normally.) In fact, there's a great history of companies taking on their interns after, as these companies are at a stage of rapid expansion.
You realize the pressure is the same 10ft down pipe full of salt water as 10ft down the ocean? How nasty the tides would be would largely be a reflection of how deep and wide the channel opening was. Not any worse then the mouth of any river or other estuary.
Yes, I realise this. Do you realise that the volume of water in a ten foot pipe is a lot less than the volume of water in ten feet of ocean? The difference between high tide and low tide in Rance, Brittany, France, is on average 8m and the tidal barrage there generates 240 MW by retaining water/void in an area of 9 square miles. Now even if the tidal drop between the Carribean Sea and the Pacific isn't quite as high as the tidal bore at Rance, you're replacing a 9 sq mi lagoon with hundreds of miles of ocean -- unimaginable billions of tons of water all attempting to level off to the same height as the other side.