Software is simply a tool, there is no moral choice involved in its creation; that comes when someone decides to use it. As such, FOSS simply allows creation of software via a community model. Other less free ones exist as well but to say model X is a more more moral choice because it confirms to your view of how software should be developed is not a valid argument for it being more moral.

Hardly. A tools creator is not responsible for how it is used unless they participate in its use. If they create it for an immoral purpose then they share the responsibility; however if they create it for other reasons then they bear no blame for its immoral use.

The cost of a tool has no bearing on whether it is used of good or bad. TFA argument is the free riders are bad; a position which is in total opposition to the concept of FOSS. Th writer seems to believe that because someone uses FOSS they incur an obligation to provide financial support for its further development; a position that is neither supported by the gPL nor the philosophy of FOSS. A user's obligation when using GPL's software is pretty clear and the solution to the writer's concern is not to use the GPL if you want renumeration from people using the software yo create. There is no moral decision involved, it is strictly a business one.

Most personal car policy exclude commercial use, so no the owner's policy would not provide coverage; according to some news accounts insurers cancel policy if they find out your driving for Uber or Lyft or some other service. That's not surprising since they would not want to be held liable by a court despite their exclusion. While Uber advertises it has insurance for its drivers it's not clear policy exclusions are included. For example, it appears if the Uber driver fails to activate the ride there is no coverage. What happens if the driver lets a friend use his or her car to do the ride? What happens if there is more losses than the $1 million in coverage? Uber would no doubt say they are not liable, so who is? Is the driver your agent, making you responsible for the loss?

Uber et. al. have a good idea but I disagree with their claim they are not a taxi / limo service. All they have done is take the old model of "call 555-TAXI" and replace the landline and dispatcher with an app; as such they should conform to the laws regulating such services. If they can't make a go of it while doing that then it wasn't a very good idea after all.

If they redistribute the code without complying with the license then they could be compelled by court to comply if somme wanted to force the issue. No model is going to ensure everyone plays by the rules without being forced to; that they behave that way doesn't make the software any less free.

Now you're sounding like a troll. None of those have anything to do with free software as you are not forced to speak (i.e. contribute to the development) nor prevented from speaking (using the code). As for privacy, how does free software impact your right to privacy? It's simply there for you to use if you want to and you can determine if it meets your "privacy" standard.

All of those things would exist without free software as well. Your assumption that somehow things that exist today would not if there was no free software is flawed; as evidenced by the number of proprietary, non-free alternatives to most free software. You may not like that people can make money off of free software but that has been a feature of it from the beginning.

Why?

How so? You have all the freedom in the world to use the code as you see fit no matter what someone else does with it. If anything, the GPL prevents someone from limiting your freedom since they cannot stop you from doing whatever you want with the code, all they can do is use the code how they want to.

The GPL in no way limits freedom in real life. Anyone is free to use the code in any way they see fit without paying a penny. That is the most free model available. TFA's author main point is upset that companies don't support free software nd seem stop believe that FOSS is more worthy of development than other project companies work on and thus they freeload on FOSS; except that they are not really freeloading since the GPL specifically allows such behavior as part of the license.

Except they are not merely texting a friend for a ride. Uber may be using an app but they are no different in principle than some person answering a phone and telling a cabby to pick up a ride at location X; and thus should play by the same rules. Uber thinks by simply changing how a cab is dispatched changes the business model; nothing could be further from the truth. They want all the benefits of running a cab service but none of the accountability, probably because if they actually have to follow the rules they would not be making any money. If I had a cab company I'd be looking how can I adapt Uber's use of an app to my company and drive their profit down to unacceptable levels so they exit the market. Even Uber realizes there is no sustainable advantage in their model since they allegedly use some shady tactics to hurt competitors. The black sedan company I use already have an app that lets me book a car in any city they serve so I don't see how Uber is a good long term bet.

Have to make sure you experience the same wilily of ride with Uber...

Try riding a cab in city where they aren't properly regulated and you may change your mind after you get in a cab with a driver who asks you for directions in a city you do not live in and is driving a clapped out ex cop car with bad shocks, a check engine light that's on and whose brakes squeal like metal to metal contact is being made whenever he uses them.

Sure, regulation limits competition and part of the reasons there is a strong move to keep regulations in place is to keep the value of the medallion artificially high. OTOH, simply arguing because you use an app to hail a ride you are somehow different and not subject to the same rules is ridiculous. There just gypsy cabs with a nicer front end for hailing them.

Why? A GPL is only one way to license and develop code, and everyone who uses it understands the ramifications. There is no obligation to contribute while everyone is free to use it as they say fit. the only obligation is to release any modified code you distribute under the GPL. As with any contract you are free to accept it or not. No one is sponging off anyone given the license freely allows anyone to use the code with no expectation of renumeration. If you don't like the GPL you can create your own license and use it; no one is stopping you from doing that. If you don't like someone using code you write and distribute under the GPL then don't use the GPL. It's pretty simple.

Actually, no. The problem was I was very good at it, knew how to work the system to get stuff done and minimize the impact of stupidity on my team, and as a result kept getting picked to do PM work on tough projects even when I said I do not do PM work; that's not what I was hired to do nor what I want to spend a career doing. And, yes, that is the PM's job and was why I did it but I finally said "screw this" and left. As for my team, I had their back and took care of them which is why they kept working for me even when they could leave the project. I can see why good PMs bail; they don't need all the crap that goes with the job when they can make more money and have less stress doing something else.

Having been involved in IT PM I concur. I ran away as fast as I could and even quit a job after they asked me to go manage another project; trying to run herd on a bunch of techies, sitting in on endless worthless meetings where nothing is decided, and fighting management who seems to think changing specifications constantly will somehow magically keep a project on schedule is not my idea of fun. Oh yea, and having management that believed everything the salesperson said and then argues when you try to explain that converting thousands of records, all of which where entered in a system that didn't enforce data integrity, will take longer than 2 weeks, cost 10x as much and they will still loses 20% of the data. Don't even get me started on the "We're different at this location so we need to do it this way" after everyone agreed to one standard approach.

It really depends on what you want to do. yea, if you want to move back into tech you probably will get zero ROI. A key point is to look at a school's hiring results and see if the $ and companies will make it worthwhile.

Good advice since experience helps a lot in post-MBA hiring.

Also good advice. If your company will foot the bill that means they value the degree and saves you money.

That really depends on what you want to do. if you want to go back into an IT role an MBA is worthless; just as an IT degree is probably worthless if you want to do organizational development work. If you plan to switch careers then it can be helpful. It also depends on the school. There are a lot of schools offering MBAs that may have some regional recognition but not much value nationally and probably much less of a network, which is the real value of the MBA. Grades also count.

The real question is the agreement legally binding. Laws very state to state, and as my lawyer pointed out what is enforceable today may not be tomorrow since courts decide these types of cases a lot. They can always sue but if they have little chance of winning and / or there is very little money at stake may simply let it ride.

If it were me and a client wanted to hire me as an employee and not a contractor, I'd let the client know I need to discuss this with the agency due to my employment contract and then reach out to the agency. That way I'd be completely up front with everyone and have the client watching out for my back as well. Chances are the agency doesn't want to upset a client and may already have contractual agreements to deal with such a circumstance. Quite frankly, every place that I've worked it's never been an issue hiring contractors as employees; the agency wants to keep good relationships and having an ex-employee, who left under good terms, at the client is a plus as well.

is the internet is slowly splitting into anonymous and identifiable user connections. The security aspects aside, anon connections makes it much more difficult to track and collect user data for sale or to promote a site's products. As a result, I think we'll see more and more efforts to block anon connection as the real cost is in the lost revenue, not the amounts lost to criminal activities. If the losses due to theft and fraud become to large the banks will figure it out; right now my guess the cost of solving the problem is great rattan the losses so there is no strong incentive to fix it.

The EU is very much a group of independent countries that have agreed to work together on many issues but have not been willing to give up sovereignty to the point where an EU law has supremacy over local laws. A a result, EU rules tend to be a lowest common denominator with individual countries adding on their own requirements. That's not unexpected since the EU is not a country like say the US where there is a federal system that has sway over the individual states, district and territories that make up the US; where there is agreement the EU works well and but individual countries still have the real power in the union and there still is a very distinct nationalism at play in the political and economic dynamics. That's not necessarily better or worse than other models but just a reflection of how the EU came into being.