That's a somewhat useless comment. If you think I'm missing something at least tell me what that is. If you want to talk about some legal technicality: either tell us what it is or have a hard look whether it's relevant in the context of this thread. Surely you can do better than this "I know something and you common people couldn't possibly understand" act?

Not sure what you mean by that. GPL v2 is incompatible with attribution requirements, v3 allows you to amend the terms to require attribution. It's not a requirement by default.

I worked on one of those. The customer needed a PCB with an FPGA on it, which was to be the prototype. They already had VC funding. They contracted us for the hardware design and were developing the software themselves. The effort for the hardware design was two engineers for 6 months (at contracting rates) plus material, PCB manufacturing etc. On top of that they had to live of something while they developed the software, so for a few individuals that hard to pull off without any funding.

I don't see how these changes help in those cases at all. If you are simply copying another person's idea, having a prototype and showing how it works is trivial. It's only hard to do if you actually invent something.

The whole thing seems really puzzling, it wants to differentiate kickstarter from being a store by moving it closer to being a store. And if you want to develop something you can't show how you envision the final product to look like. Why is that useful?

I have never seen a good study of the actual proved innocent after death penalty administered, but I imagine the numbers will be very low.

The Colombia University Law School has done a study, which suggests the error rates are high: http://www2.law.columbia.edu/instructionalservices/liebman/liebman_final.pdf

is the death penalty a deterrent against murder?

Yes, and of course prison is a deterrent for murders, too. However people commit murders anyway. That's to be expected, so you need to measure statistically whether the death penalty deters more people. Which is very difficult to measure, since all sorts of factors could affect murder rates. However looking at US states, there is no indication that the death penalty helps with that: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

Yeah, maybe we can rewrite the headline to: "Ignorant CEO of irrelevant company is wrong about future software trends".

Don't know anything about the Archos tablets, but would this help? http://liliputing.com/2011/07/cyanogenmod-7-brings-android-2-3-to-more-archos-tablets.html

I think the qualification side of it, is only half of the story. Yes, someone can teach themselves and end up being better than others who have a degree - on average that's not going to be the case though.

That's not all there is to it though: if you have e.g. $100k today, or if you manage to save that amount within a few years by living *very* frugally (which many students do) and working a second job (which many students do), then you can invest that money. Let's say you invest in stocks - that should get you an average return of about 10%. In 30 years (assuming all gains go back into the investment account) those savings will have grown to about 1.75 million.

So take a hard look what it costs to get a degree. Also think about how much money you could save if you were working as hard and living as frugally as you would as a student for the duration a degree takes, but working a normal job. Then think about whether that's a good investment.

At the very least, carefully evaluate how much the school costs, and see if your chances of earning more money are really *that* much better when going to a school with higher fees.