And also, paper degrades, creating dust, which is a low-level but cumulative nuisance you'd like to avoid in space. But I suspect the main point of the QUID is to support novelty sales on earth. Much like star name certificates.
Another way to interpret this is that China is catching up to us. It is another sign of the victory of capitalism, even in the labor market -- his skills are in demand, so job offers from Chinese companies are coming in; it doesn't matter that he's in prison. He's the Frank Abagnale ("Catch Me If You Can") of China.
Thanks for your response, which makes sense. My question was for mr. matticus, who posted upthread, saying:
You can't ignore the GPL--it's the only thing that grants you legal access to the copyrighted material.
Given the nature of GPL software, it seems to me that there are many ways in which I could 'come upon' a copy of the software without a sale being involved (thus first sale doesn't apply), and as I noted, the GPL does include a provision which allows me to use the software. (There's also the longstanding debate about whether 'first sale' applies to software that is 'not sold, but licensed'.)
I was just wondering if there was a legal hair to be split about how I might come in possession of a copy. Since you refer to 'lawful copy', that implies the existence of an 'unlawful copy'.... I'm curious as to what mechanisms distinguish between lawful and unlawful copies, and whether the GPL is involved in those mechanisms. Is it the case that even if someone distributes in violation of the GPL, the copy I receive from them is a lawful copy? (on your second example, I understand 'use' to mean that the fault lies with the distributor/airdropper; as long as you're legally able to distribute your poem, you can't sue the readers).
What you mean to say is that the GPL imposes no restrictions on people for personal use. You are in full compliance with the GPL no matter what you do as a personal user. You can't ignore the GPL--it's the only thing that grants you legal access to the copyrighted material.
Ok, not trolling, I'm really trying to understand this. In the GPL Terms and Conditions, I read:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. So my question is, what part of the GPL is the one that "grants [me] legal access to the copyrighted material"? I see that the next sentence says "The act of running the Program is not restricted", but that doesn't say anything about granting me access; it only suggests (to me at least) that once I do have legal access, I don't need anything else in order to also run it.
My theory is that a lot more of them are actively reading than you might think; they're just more Zen about it, and don't feel the need to talk as much. Occasionally they see fit to drop some pearls of gnomic wisdom on us, but most of the time they just read. The low-UID threads are a particularly funny (and easy) joke for them, so they tend to pipe up on those. For a fictional version of the usually-silent-elders concept, check out Lafferty's story Nine Hundred Grandmothers.
Gutmann is a clever writer, and he's able to string together nouns, verbs, technical terms,and acronyms in ways that sound persuasive. In this three-part series [...] I'm going to dig deep into Gutmann's work and show you just where he got it wrong.
It should be illegal to string together nouns, verbs, technical terms,and acronyms in ways that sound persuasive.
And no, if a burglar drops his wallet with $1,000 on your floor, that doesn't make the money yours. He may be guilty of a crime, but that doesn't give you any rights to what's not yours.
[...]
And sometimes things are left on your property, for you, and they are in fact yours.
Waitaminute, so if the neighbor walks his dog and it craps on my lawn, and while he's doing it the neighbor drops his wallet, the dog crap belongs to me, but the wallet does not? How unfair can life be?
"Apparently your belief in individual responsibility doesn't extend to the level that you refuse to post AC."
Apparently you have to resort to Ad Hominem attacks (or are you unaware that you did that?) when you can't make a coherent argument.
Referring to qualities of a speaker does not make it an ad hominem attack. In this case, I was noting a possible instance of hypocrisy in the difference between your posting AC and championing individual responsibility. To learn more about why this is not an ad hominem attack, I would suggest you read this article.
And why is it you assholes who hide behind pseudonyms think that makes you so much more credible than AC's?
And, believe it or not, even your use of 'asshole' here does not qualify as ad hominem. (See the linked article). To answer your question, I'm not claiming 'much' more credibility, but merely 'some'; I've posted a fair bit, and interested parties can at least decide if what I'm posting in this thread is consistent with what I've held elsewhere. Even that (fairly low) level of personal identity is not met by ACs.
"The government is responsible because it equipped this person with a uniform, badge, gun, and (most importantly) training, as well as giving him a mandate to enforce the law."
Except THAT IS NOT THE LEGAL TEST YOU DULLARD SO STOP PRESUMING YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE LAW HAS ANY BEARING ON THE ACTUAL LAW ITSELF.
I'm still not getting your point. Perhaps a larger font size would help?
I never said anything about a legal test. The one point that I was trying to make is that I don't find it 'sad' that the relevant government may have to offer financial restitution in this case, because it is apparently the only efficacious way to hold a government, and by extension the citizens who voted that government into office, responsible for its role in the violation of civil rights that occurred. You don't believe that the government holds any responsibility; fine. I happen to think that your opinion can't be made consistent with most reasonable ideas about government. Our disagreement, at least as I see it, is one of political philosophy, not one about the current state of law.
"But he 'arrested' someone, which is the act of a government..."
No, IT IS NOT. Citizen's arrest is an example that shows you're full of shit.
So now you're claiming that this 'individual', employed as a police officer, on duty, was actually making a citizen's arrest, because he was in error? If you read up on citizen's arrest, you will find that among the many restrictions on this concept is the requirement to turn the 'arrestee' over to proper authorities as soon as is practicable. There is no "citizen's judicial system" of which citizen's arrest is a part; it's merely a stopgap measure to hold the guy until you call a cop.
But because you're clearly too dimwittd to grasp the point, being an agent of the government DOES NOT ALWAYS AND IRREVOCABLY MAKE THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS.
Ah, finally an actual ad hominem! Unfortunately, your grammar makes it somewhat of a nonsequitur -- my level of dimwittedness, whatever it is, clearly has no effect on whether or not 'being an agent of the government, etc., etc. ' Further, I never claimed that it was 'always and irrevocably' so, I just was claiming that in this case -- an officer, on duty, in uniform, dispached to the scene in response to a call to the police -- was acting in his capacity as an agent of the government. I'll concede that there are many actions performed by someone who is an agent of the government for which the governm
BECAUSE THE "GOVERNMENT" DID NOTHING WRONG HERE, AND INDIVIDUAL DID.
Apparently my half joking attempt to portray you as an ignorant retard was more accurate than I thought.
Apparently your belief in individual responsibility doesn't extend to the level that you refuse to post AC. Or note the difference between actual argument and abusive rhetoric.
The government is responsible because it equipped this person with a uniform, badge, gun, and (most importantly) training, as well as giving him a mandate to enforce the law. If his training, or the screening process the government used to qualify him for the position, was so deficient, then the government is responsible, because they equipped and trained him, and gave him a job. The 'individual' you are talking about would not have been on the scene except for the fact that he was an agent of the government.
If he acted as he did as an individual, it would be a case of simple assault. But he 'arrested' someone, which is the act of a government, and in this case a violation of civil rights.
Unfortunately, as governments are abstractions, all their actions are carried out by individuals, who may occasionally be in error. That does not diminish the responsibility of the government for putting that person in a position to violate civil rights.
A reductio of your position is that, since governments can't do anything by themselves, but only through the agency of individuals, when something goes wrong, 'the government did nothing wrong, an individual did'. Or, more succinctly, "Governments can do no wrong, only individuals can." Not very appetizing.
Perhaps if I made my points in all caps, you'd understand them better?
you didn't answer my question, which was, what alternative is better?"
I wasn't trying to, mostly because it's an idiotic question which you already know the answer to.
Actually, no. Politically, we seem to be on such different planets that I have no idea what you think the answer I already know would be. Unless you're a radical anarchist, you believe in some level of law enforcement provided by a government; how do you propose that law enforcement is suitably prevented from violating civil rights?
Wow, all that abuse, and you didn't answer my question, which was, what alternative is better?
Once we take away the abuse, your remaining point seems to be that since the government's money comes from 'us', the payment here is coming from 'us', hence my position costs me something, hence I'm an 'ignorant retard'.
To which my answer is -- nothing, including government, is free. The cop in the story was acting with the authority of the government, so although it may have been an individual's mistake, the responsibility extends to the government (for his screening and training, etc.) If we elect people who allow this infringement of rights to happen, then it is just that we accept financial consequences to our votes. If you prefer a government in which this happens, then you should be willing to support the marginally higher costs (or, alternatively, support the elimination of the civil rights that the cop in question violated). That will save you your precious money.
If, on the other hand, you value civil rights, you should either work to elect candidates who support those values (down to the level of appropriate training of street cops), or you should accept the incremental financial penalty (in the form of higher taxes used to pay for lawsuit settlements) that comes with the disconnect between your pro-civil-rights values and your support for certain candidates.
I still don't see why it's 'sad' that a government -- and by extension, the citizens who voted for that government -- should be held to account. If you can describe a more reasonable system that protects civil rights, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
strider44 writes "Mark from Sysinternals has digged a little deeper into the Sony DRM and discovered it Phones Home with an ID for the CD being listened to."
And Mark Russinovich from Microsoft has commented that this behavior should be considered a feature !
The officer actually citing the guy for a silly charge like "obstructing an officer" (or whatever phrasing they actually used) is an obvious "uh, I can't find anything to actually charge you with, but you were a jerk, so n'yah!" That's probably gonna cost the city/state a bit of cash, too, sadly.
Umm... 'sadly' ? Just out of curiosity, in your worldview, when civil rights have already decayed to the point that things like TFA described are happening, what alternative mechanisms (other than suing the government for cash) do you think would work to compel local governments to get back on the straight and narrow? Stern reprimands, with no follow-through?
In the spirit of Churchill's 'democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others', I'd say 'monetary payment is the worst form of redress for governmental wrongdoing -- except for all the others'. It's the only way to make them sit up and pay attention.
Doesn't look like it. Basically, if I want to plot, say X vs. time coincident on the same chart with Y vs. distance, I can't do that now.
And that's a feature, not a bug, of OO. If you've actually tried to do this, you need to surf over to http://www.edwardtufte.com/, buy all the man's books, and read them. Then you'll have some better ideas about how to use charts to communicate information rather than muddle. My brain hurts just thinking about what that chart must look like...
OpenOffice has a lot of potential, but also a lot of issues. It's convienent for OSS proponents to ignore / gloss over / minimize OpenOffice's flaws, but this doesn't work in business.
OIC, so you're saying that Microsoft has locked up the business/enterprise office software market because they never ignore / gloss over / minimize the flaws of Word, Excel, Powerpoint, or... Access?
I'll agree with you that Excel is the best app to take a stand on for MS, but what percentage of Excel users make use of features unavailable in OO?
A further question, what percentage of the remaining users of those features are only 'users' in the sense that their jobs require them to interact with one or two kludgy Excel VBA (or Access) apps that they'd gladly give up a limb or two to leave behind? The productivity that has been lost on some of those monstrosities would be more than enough to pay for the development of a reasonable replacement...
The whole idea that there is a philosophy behind the GPL and that is the spirit, not the words that are written down to satisfy the lawyers is just lost on the guy.
I disagree. I don't think that 'whole idea' is 'lost on the guy'; I think he grasps that idea very well. He just disagrees with it. A license is a text you bring into a courtroom when necessary; it is not a token for an 'idea', 'philosophy', or 'spirit'. Those abstract entities may have motivated the creation of the license, but they do not supersede the text, in all cases when what the license actually means has to matter.
When you go to court, you go to court with the text, not with 'what RMS was trying to say'. Otherwise, contract law would be even more of a mess than it is now.
To put it in your terms, RMS published for the world to see a text called the GPL, and made further claims about it being inspired by a spirit/philosophy/idea/manifesto. Linus saw that and said, hey, great text, I think I'll use it as a software license, I may or may not agree with your philosophy, but that doesn't matter."
Now some people come along and say, hey, Linus is using the text of the GPL without agreeing with the philosophy! Which brings us to what I'll call the GNU Koan:
Is the text of the GPL released under the GPL?
If so, Linus can use it for whatever he wants, and RMS et al should stop whining about it. If not... I'll leave it to you to contemplate the hypocrisy. To claim that anybody who used GPL2 was thus ipso facto buying into a 'philosophy' that subsequently required them to upgrade to GPL3 is a rather dubious argument.
If you assign your copyright to them, are they under some Power of Attorney like duty to act in your best interests? If you want to switch to a BSD license, are they allowed to say no?
You ask a fair question, but it sounds like we're losing track of the initial issue. The GP to your post asked:
I write something and put it out for GPL, my ONLY option if I want to continue to have any control is to require copyright assignment to me for any patches/etc. However, would YOU contribute to any such project knowing that the copyright owner could flip it to BSD or propietary on a whim? I'm guessing "no", so you want to retain your copyright on the portions you contribute, which in turn make the original person (like the poster) effectively unable to control their code. You can't even fork it without stripping out all the non-copyright-assigned code if you want to switch licenses, for example.
So my response was meant to solve the problem of 'how to attract contributors to a project currently under GPL'. By assigning copyright to the FSF, you are effectively making sure that the entire project is, and will always remain, GPL'd. If the project creator's intention is to have a GPL'd project forever, and reassure contributors that he will not incorporate their work into a future closed-source commercial product, he can provide that reassurance by demonstrating that the copyright on the project has been assigned to the GPL, and requiring contributors to do the same.
Allowing all contributors to keep their copyrights creates exponential complexity; assigning them to the project creator is risky. Since the goal of the FSF is to defend the GPL, assigning copyright to them guarantees that the project is GPL.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'act in your best interests'. My understanding is that Eben Moglen and the FSF have acted to defend copyright of GPL'd projects, both those that are official FSF projects, and those that have assigned copyright to the FSF. Their interest in doing so, I imagine, is to demonstrate the strength of the GPL as a license, and prove that it can 'stand up in court'. As Eben Moglen notes, defending the GPL and going to court are two different things; precisely because the GPL is so well-written, violations don't go as far as court cases.
So: if your 'best interest' involves keeping your code free forever, in the GPL sense, then assigning it to them will do that, and they have better means to do that than you do. On the other hand, you cannot re-release GPL'd code as BSD-licensed code, but as discussed above, that's not the problem this thread was addressing. As the initial creator, you can dual-license the initial release, but that creates a massive PITA for everyone involved, because then all patches have to be either dual-licensed, too. Bottom line, if you ever imagine that you'll want to release a closed-source 'premium' version, go with BSD; use GPL if you're a True Believer.
I know many fem rights activists as my sister is an advocate for the cause (Berkeley based). Many of those ladies get offended by the constant separation of female achievement from male achievement.
Just out of curiosity (this isn't a troll, I'm really curious) does your sister (and/or her colleagues) support the efforts of female golfers to compete in (men's) PGA tournaments? (e.g. Annika Sorenstam, Michelle Wie). If so, do they similarly support the elimination of the LPGA in favor of a single non-gendered professional golf association?
I raise this question because there seems to be an implicit assumption that a certain level of gender segregation is the 'right' amount to have, and I'm curious as to how people explain their judgments on this issue. (There's a side issue, more contentious but no less interesting, about whether allowing women to enter men's events should be matched by allowing men to enter women's events, or whether some sort of affirmative-action goal is being served by allowing LPGA golfers to play in PGA tournaments, but not allowing Tiger Woods to play in LPGA tournaments).
Whatever its other failings, the 'total segregation' position is at least consistent, as is the 'zero segregation' position. Most people, however, hold intermediate positions with less clear justification.
A few for-instances: Why, in the Olympics, are the equestrian events gender-integrated, but Curling is segregated? Why is competitive chess gender-segregated, but not competitive poker?
Before we go around cheerleading or decrying a particular incident or situation, it might be smart to discuss what principles and values we would bring to bear on designing our wished-for end state of appropriate gender equality.
Slashdot Mirror
F
I
R
S
T
P
O
S
T
!
!
!
And also, paper degrades, creating dust, which is a low-level but cumulative nuisance you'd like to avoid in space. But I suspect the main point of the QUID is to support novelty sales on earth. Much like star name certificates.
Another way to interpret this is that China is catching up to us. It is another sign of the victory of capitalism, even in the labor market -- his skills are in demand, so job offers from Chinese companies are coming in; it doesn't matter that he's in prison. He's the Frank Abagnale ("Catch Me If You Can") of China.
I was just wondering if there was a legal hair to be split about how I might come in possession of a copy. Since you refer to 'lawful copy', that implies the existence of an 'unlawful copy'.... I'm curious as to what mechanisms distinguish between lawful and unlawful copies, and whether the GPL is involved in those mechanisms. Is it the case that even if someone distributes in violation of the GPL, the copy I receive from them is a lawful copy? (on your second example, I understand 'use' to mean that the fault lies with the distributor/airdropper; as long as you're legally able to distribute your poem, you can't sue the readers).
My theory is that a lot more of them are actively reading than you might think; they're just more Zen about it, and don't feel the need to talk as much. Occasionally they see fit to drop some pearls of gnomic wisdom on us, but most of the time they just read. The low-UID threads are a particularly funny (and easy) joke for them, so they tend to pipe up on those. For a fictional version of the usually-silent-elders concept, check out Lafferty's story Nine Hundred Grandmothers.
It should be illegal to string together nouns, verbs, technical terms,and acronyms in ways that sound persuasive.
Referring to qualities of a speaker does not make it an ad hominem attack. In this case, I was noting a possible instance of hypocrisy in the difference between your posting AC and championing individual responsibility. To learn more about why this is not an ad hominem attack, I would suggest you read this article.
And, believe it or not, even your use of 'asshole' here does not qualify as ad hominem. (See the linked article). To answer your question, I'm not claiming 'much' more credibility, but merely 'some'; I've posted a fair bit, and interested parties can at least decide if what I'm posting in this thread is consistent with what I've held elsewhere. Even that (fairly low) level of personal identity is not met by ACs.
I'm still not getting your point. Perhaps a larger font size would help?
I never said anything about a legal test. The one point that I was trying to make is that I don't find it 'sad' that the relevant government may have to offer financial restitution in this case, because it is apparently the only efficacious way to hold a government, and by extension the citizens who voted that government into office, responsible for its role in the violation of civil rights that occurred. You don't believe that the government holds any responsibility; fine. I happen to think that your opinion can't be made consistent with most reasonable ideas about government. Our disagreement, at least as I see it, is one of political philosophy, not one about the current state of law.
So now you're claiming that this 'individual', employed as a police officer, on duty, was actually making a citizen's arrest, because he was in error? If you read up on citizen's arrest, you will find that among the many restrictions on this concept is the requirement to turn the 'arrestee' over to proper authorities as soon as is practicable. There is no "citizen's judicial system" of which citizen's arrest is a part; it's merely a stopgap measure to hold the guy until you call a cop.
Ah, finally an actual ad hominem! Unfortunately, your grammar makes it somewhat of a nonsequitur -- my level of dimwittedness, whatever it is, clearly has no effect on whether or not 'being an agent of the government, etc., etc. ' Further, I never claimed that it was 'always and irrevocably' so, I just was claiming that in this case -- an officer, on duty, in uniform, dispached to the scene in response to a call to the police -- was acting in his capacity as an agent of the government. I'll concede that there are many actions performed by someone who is an agent of the government for which the governm
The government is responsible because it equipped this person with a uniform, badge, gun, and (most importantly) training, as well as giving him a mandate to enforce the law. If his training, or the screening process the government used to qualify him for the position, was so deficient, then the government is responsible, because they equipped and trained him, and gave him a job. The 'individual' you are talking about would not have been on the scene except for the fact that he was an agent of the government.
If he acted as he did as an individual, it would be a case of simple assault. But he 'arrested' someone, which is the act of a government, and in this case a violation of civil rights.
Unfortunately, as governments are abstractions, all their actions are carried out by individuals, who may occasionally be in error. That does not diminish the responsibility of the government for putting that person in a position to violate civil rights.
A reductio of your position is that, since governments can't do anything by themselves, but only through the agency of individuals, when something goes wrong, 'the government did nothing wrong, an individual did'. Or, more succinctly, "Governments can do no wrong, only individuals can." Not very appetizing.
Perhaps if I made my points in all caps, you'd understand them better? Actually, no. Politically, we seem to be on such different planets that I have no idea what you think the answer I already know would be. Unless you're a radical anarchist, you believe in some level of law enforcement provided by a government; how do you propose that law enforcement is suitably prevented from violating civil rights?
Wow, all that abuse, and you didn't answer my question, which was, what alternative is better?
Once we take away the abuse, your remaining point seems to be that since the government's money comes from 'us', the payment here is coming from 'us', hence my position costs me something, hence I'm an 'ignorant retard'.
To which my answer is -- nothing, including government, is free. The cop in the story was acting with the authority of the government, so although it may have been an individual's mistake, the responsibility extends to the government (for his screening and training, etc.) If we elect people who allow this infringement of rights to happen, then it is just that we accept financial consequences to our votes. If you prefer a government in which this happens, then you should be willing to support the marginally higher costs (or, alternatively, support the elimination of the civil rights that the cop in question violated). That will save you your precious money.
If, on the other hand, you value civil rights, you should either work to elect candidates who support those values (down to the level of appropriate training of street cops), or you should accept the incremental financial penalty (in the form of higher taxes used to pay for lawsuit settlements) that comes with the disconnect between your pro-civil-rights values and your support for certain candidates.
I still don't see why it's 'sad' that a government -- and by extension, the citizens who voted for that government -- should be held to account. If you can describe a more reasonable system that protects civil rights, I'd be interested in hearing about it.
In the spirit of Churchill's 'democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others', I'd say 'monetary payment is the worst form of redress for governmental wrongdoing -- except for all the others'. It's the only way to make them sit up and pay attention.
I'll agree with you that Excel is the best app to take a stand on for MS, but what percentage of Excel users make use of features unavailable in OO?
A further question, what percentage of the remaining users of those features are only 'users' in the sense that their jobs require them to interact with one or two kludgy Excel VBA (or Access) apps that they'd gladly give up a limb or two to leave behind? The productivity that has been lost on some of those monstrosities would be more than enough to pay for the development of a reasonable replacement...
We're going to wait for Maury to announce the DNA test results just the same, thanks...
When you go to court, you go to court with the text, not with 'what RMS was trying to say'. Otherwise, contract law would be even more of a mess than it is now.
To put it in your terms, RMS published for the world to see a text called the GPL, and made further claims about it being inspired by a spirit/philosophy/idea/manifesto. Linus saw that and said, hey, great text, I think I'll use it as a software license, I may or may not agree with your philosophy, but that doesn't matter."
Now some people come along and say, hey, Linus is using the text of the GPL without agreeing with the philosophy! Which brings us to what I'll call the GNU Koan:
Is the text of the GPL released under the GPL?
If so, Linus can use it for whatever he wants, and RMS et al should stop whining about it. If not... I'll leave it to you to contemplate the hypocrisy. To claim that anybody who used GPL2 was thus ipso facto buying into a 'philosophy' that subsequently required them to upgrade to GPL3 is a rather dubious argument.
Allowing all contributors to keep their copyrights creates exponential complexity; assigning them to the project creator is risky. Since the goal of the FSF is to defend the GPL, assigning copyright to them guarantees that the project is GPL.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'act in your best interests'. My understanding is that Eben Moglen and the FSF have acted to defend copyright of GPL'd projects, both those that are official FSF projects, and those that have assigned copyright to the FSF. Their interest in doing so, I imagine, is to demonstrate the strength of the GPL as a license, and prove that it can 'stand up in court'. As Eben Moglen notes, defending the GPL and going to court are two different things; precisely because the GPL is so well-written, violations don't go as far as court cases.
So: if your 'best interest' involves keeping your code free forever, in the GPL sense, then assigning it to them will do that, and they have better means to do that than you do. On the other hand, you cannot re-release GPL'd code as BSD-licensed code, but as discussed above, that's not the problem this thread was addressing. As the initial creator, you can dual-license the initial release, but that creates a massive PITA for everyone involved, because then all patches have to be either dual-licensed, too. Bottom line, if you ever imagine that you'll want to release a closed-source 'premium' version, go with BSD; use GPL if you're a True Believer.
I raise this question because there seems to be an implicit assumption that a certain level of gender segregation is the 'right' amount to have, and I'm curious as to how people explain their judgments on this issue. (There's a side issue, more contentious but no less interesting, about whether allowing women to enter men's events should be matched by allowing men to enter women's events, or whether some sort of affirmative-action goal is being served by allowing LPGA golfers to play in PGA tournaments, but not allowing Tiger Woods to play in LPGA tournaments).
Whatever its other failings, the 'total segregation' position is at least consistent, as is the 'zero segregation' position. Most people, however, hold intermediate positions with less clear justification.
A few for-instances: Why, in the Olympics, are the equestrian events gender-integrated, but Curling is segregated? Why is competitive chess gender-segregated, but not competitive poker?
Before we go around cheerleading or decrying a particular incident or situation, it might be smart to discuss what principles and values we would bring to bear on designing our wished-for end state of appropriate gender equality.
Please stop posting dupes of recent Slashdot stories as comments in other threads, thanks!
Alternatively, release your code under GPL, and assign the copyright to the FSF, and require all contributors to do the same. Problem solved.