The religious war of "free" versus "open" is what turns a lot of people off.
Previously, when posting code I wrote, I'd pick MIT license which would allow users to do what they wanted. Picking GPL would mean that many potential users would be prohibited by company policy from using it.
Exactly. I'm one of those who honestly doesn't mind if anyone comes along, forks, closes the source, and makes a million off my code. I think it's a lot about money. There's also this rejection of the FOSS ideals. The GPL puts a lot of people off because it can be perceived as being more about ego and anti-profit rather than true freedom. For me personally, I prefer open source to free because I'm against restricting anyone's usage of my code and don't mind if they don't contribute back.
I think people's intentions have changed too. It was once all about paying things forward and now the importance seems to be placed on simply sharing with no regard to how the code is used or by whom.
The approaches are different, but in terms of licenses and rights, Open Source and Free Software are mostly the same. MIT and BSD are Free Software too.
Really? I mean, I know they're very close but correct me if I'm wrong here:
First, let me be clear that I'm talking about Free in terms of how the GPL codifies it.
So Free software a la the GPL always begets more free software. Open source on the other hand is free but you can close that source up and make a nice profit without contributing back. I'm for the latter and that's the distinction I was getting at. I know all the licenses have their nuances but generally speaking free GPL style licenses forbid not contributing back whereas open source generally let's people do as they please as far as contributing your changes go.
Free Software, as defined by the FSF, includes both copyleft like the GPL and permissive licenses like BSD. Open Source, as defined by the OSI, does the same.
Essentially, it's Free Software any license that provides the following four freedoms:
The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so
it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1).
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3).
Copyleft (like the GPL has) is a way to ensure that the four freedoms are transfered to any derivative work, but:
A free license may also permit other ways of releasing them;
in other words, it does not have to be a copyleft license.
The mods on the StackOverflow sites seem to be trigger-happy deleting and locking posts. Most of my major upvoted answers are on threads now closed as off-topic - so this tells me that the StackOverflows have changed to be a place that I'm not welcome at anymore.
The rise of the "opinions are not wanted here" attitude on SO is disappointing - I understand the motive but they may be kicking out the baby with the bath water.
Stack Overflow has a vigorous moderating policy. That's usually a good thing. It helps form a community, and keeps stuff out.
The problem comes with a huge site like SO, because there are so many "not welcome here" topics which get closed, with no suggestions about where to put those questions, and without great explanations about why those topics aren't welcome.
It's not as thoroughly toxic as some[1] aspects of wikipedia are, but it's not pleasant for some people.
[1] for various values of some, including "all" for a few users.
> Isn't "post-factum civil litigation" an even better mechanism for enforcement?
That hasn't worked out well for Madoff's "investors".
> Look companies that are "bad actors" are going to cheat the SEC and the public anyway...
And Congress passed Sarbanes-Oxley to prevent future Enrons and WorldComms. HR 3606 repeals SOX for the first 5 years of an "emerging growth company" stock issuance and returns us to the "good old days" when fraudsters were able to run wild.
> Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Securities and Exchange Commission shall revise subsection (d)(1) of section 230.144A of title 17, Code of Federal Regulations, to provide that securities sold under such revised exemption may be offered to persons other than qualified institutional buyers, including by means of general solicitation or general advertising...
They no longer have to limit their pre-prospectus info to qualified investors - it is now wide open to advertising to everyone. And instead of only selling to qualified investors, they now can sell to anyone that the seller reasonably believe is a qualified institutional buyer. I can imagine the conversations now: "I can only sell to qualified investors wink, so since you want to buy it, I believe that you are a qualified investor!"
Bughouse lets you have experts and novices playing without the novices getting totally stomped. Because you can always move a piece, or place a piece that your team-mate captured, you have a lot more options. This also makes it far more fun for lesser skilled players than regular chess.
But the people who are good at Bughouse here have all said you have to move in 0.5 seconds or it's not even worth playing. I can play chess quickly, but not that quickly.
Where I used to play, we mostly played standard chess openings. Bughouse is different enough that one can have expert chess players playing against novices and since it is team-vs-team, the novice doesn't get totally stomped flat.
Something rather common was for most of the pieces to end up on one board, so my guess is that these strange openings are intended to block off places you'd normally use to drop in a piece that your team-mate captured. So it becomes more like Go,
Having read HR3606, so many existing requirements to comply with Sarbanes-Oxley and SEC regulations are eliminated for "emerging growth organizations" that there will be huge amounts of fraud. Not all "emerging growth organizations" will be fraudulent, but this makes it far easier to get away with.
One of my theories is that "morning people" have a tendency to get promoted in managerial tracks, while most IT workers tend to be "evening people". Thus to the mismanagers, it appears that their staff comes in late all the time - so to the "morning people", the "cure" for lateness is to make folks come in earlier and stay longer.
It seems to me that mismanagers never get the point that longer hours "in the seat" do not correlate to more positive work acomplished. In our profession, we've been aware that "crunch mode" is counter productive, but the lessons don't seem to get uphill to the people that dictate such things.
That truth seems to stop flowing upwards in organizations is something that appears far more often than I'd like to happen. In the worst companies I've worked for, truth stops moving upwards at my direct superior's level. In the better ones, it is a few levels uphill. The most bureaucratic and hidebound company I worked for - GM - had 15 levels of people between myself (and I was salaried) and the CEO; which was more than enough for multiple thermoclines of truth to occur.
Sample: http://blog.alexanderhiggins.com/2010/08/17/contract-gag-sil...