ufocia

10 ms·

121.
by ufocia 2y ago
Sounds like the QAnon may garner more support.
122.
by ufocia 2y ago
Don't blame it on the media, though I agree that they're not doing a good job. If you know they're not doing a good job, don't be complacent. Do the research yourself. It's not like this is a secret law and the Inte
123.
by ufocia 3y ago
You still need to put up with various levels of KYC.
124.
by ufocia 3y ago
Why this fascination with Delaware? How are Delaware corps different from other states' corps?
125.
by ufocia 3y ago
Why Delaware?
126.
by ufocia 3y ago
I'm skeptical that an at most 25k€ recovery would alleviate weariness of a big software contract without additional due diligence. It seems to me that a sole proprietorship would do more to protect against counterparty risk, i.e. more
127.
by ufocia 3y ago
True, the Dharmic masters didn't have printing presses.
128.
by ufocia 3y ago
> two-steppers ... “we admitted we were powerless, that our lives had become unmanageable, and having had a spiritual awakening, we told everyone else how to fix their lives.” LOL, though it may be the starting point of all the self-help
129.
by ufocia 3y ago
> I'm more annoyed by the usual phrasing of these things as life changing and revelatory. Maybe it's time to unstick yourself from these patterns. Life changing and revelatory can be as much evolutionary as revolutionary. There
130.
by ufocia 3y ago
Don't kill and don't steal seem pretty useful and are embedded within many if not all secular laws.
131.
by ufocia 3y ago
Semantics dear Watson: it's the inner joy that's internal.
132.
by ufocia 3y ago
One can argue a lot of things, and that's what we're doing here. How is it terrible?
133.
by ufocia 3y ago
It's only broken when they go out of business. Just because you don't like the business model, doesn't mean it's broken.
134.
by ufocia 3y ago
Trust no one. Be self sufficient. I, for one, will take the risk, reap the benefits and move on when factors are no longer conducive to my goals.
135.
by ufocia 3y ago
Who is the community?
136.
by ufocia 3y ago
Or perhaps open source it in exchange for being paid, something that developers working for corpos which contribute to (FL)OSS already do.
137.
by ufocia 3y ago
If it's legal, it's not piracy. It is merely availing oneself of an opportunity. If the authors meant to license the software differently, they should've done so. I'm sure that (FL)OSS core/demo versions is not the
138.
by ufocia 3y ago
> It’s like complaining that there are too many implementations on GitHub of the same thing. You're spot on. People are bellyaching that the world doesn't operate according to their arbitrary rules. Perhaps I'd be happier
139.
by ufocia 3y ago
They're not purists. They are zealots.
140.
by ufocia 3y ago
Contributing to a foundation may be a trap too. If you assign your copyrights to a foundation, in many jurisdictions you no longer have control of the code you wrote. That means they could license the code in a way that you wouldn't do
141.
by ufocia 3y ago
The alternative is to write it yourself or commission it, so let's be honest, it is about the cost. When you don't know what something is about, it's about money
142.
by ufocia 3y ago
Not sure what you meant. Is it wrong for Chinese companies or AWS to develop Redis or is it great, or something in-between? I wonder how many bellyachers here contributed to Redis vs. just leeched. (Not a rhetorical question.) How many are
143.
by ufocia 3y ago
Absolutely!
144.
by ufocia 3y ago
The copies that were created under BSD still are. Go fork and multiply. You can even make your contributions GPL or commercially licensed.
145.
by ufocia 3y ago
All the Redis users have is a license to use and an expectation. An expectation is a belief that Santa will bring presents, that's all. Where the value is or was is pure sophistry. You don't have a crystal ball, just like everyone
146.
by ufocia 3y ago
Not that capitalism is the perfect economic scheme, but rentiers exist in many economic regimes. Communism probably has more rentiers than capitalism, i.e. many people take more than they contribute.
147.
by ufocia 3y ago
We don't know what they got. Perhaps some of them were paid to create the contributions. And, in any case, that's OK. The contributors knew or should have known the impact of the license. They could've picked a more restricti
148.
by ufocia 3y ago
It does not belong to the society (whatever that's supposed to mean). It is not in the public domain as far as we know.
149.
by ufocia 3y ago
Your confusing copyrights with trademarks. The project belongs to the authors (perhaps in shares depending on the jurisdiction where it is being copied/derived) not the society. The options that were licensed under BSD generally remain
150.
by ufocia 3y ago
It is not owned by the company. You are free to create your own fork of the code with all the attendant benefits, including monetization, if applicable.

More ›