BSD is for people that are happy if somebody takes their code, improves on it and don't share the improvements when they distribute the improved code in binary format. For me that's working for free for somebody and that's not fair. Obviously corporations like BSD precisely for that reason and I don't understand why anybody would want to help them.

GPL mandates that if they distribute the improved binaries they have to share the improved source code. So I worked for free but I get the improvements back and that's a fair exchange. Obviously corporations are less happy with that because they also help their competitors (but their competitors would help them back).

That said, many developers are paid to work on BSD or GPL projects nowadays and they don't have a word in the choice of the OSS license.

This is the paper. Please mod it up.

I wonder... do they get paid to publish in those paywalled publications or they do it for free? Do they keep the copyright? If they do, why not publishing the article on the university site?

Agreed, but we should not make things easier for them. Legal sales of organs open up too many exploitation scenarios. That's enough for me to keep it illegal without even starting to discuss about the ethics of the thing.

It's a bad idea because it will make easier to exploit people. "Go to the ospital, sell a lung, come back, give me the money or several bad things will happen to your family." Suddenly people which were safe because they don't have anything to steal are not safe anymore.

Not volunteers but paid developers. This is a common misconception. Check this post for a quick summary of the contributors to the Linux kernel. Linux and many big open source projects started as volunteers's efforts and eventually turned into joint ventures between companies ruled by FOSS licenses instead of by thousands of pages of contracts. Shared development is a major money saver for all parties involved and is a very efficient way to invest resources.

The same applies to distributions, which are ofter owned or substantially backed by for profit companies (Canonical, Red Hat, etc).

/rant-mode Nevertheless even paid developers have schedules. I just wonder why nobody's schedule includes this 2007 Thunderbird bug. Well, maybe I'll have to wait for the 12th year or learn the relevant technologies and fix it myself (won't happen, i got other stuff to do.) /end-of-rant

What I appreciate with Linux and open source in general is that they have public bug trackers. I can open bugs, vote them up, contribute information, see how fixes progress. Bugs in closed source programs and OS are usually managed in a very opaque way. Those money you pay don't buy you any insight unless you pay really big money and get into some special support program.

I don't think you're going much deeper than that with this thing. The gas from the tank won't be able to keep your lungs open so you won't be able to breath. OK, there is a tank filled with compressed gas, but how much power would that micro compressor get from a tiny battery?

Anyway, the tank could have some N2 in it to start with so the problem could be mitigated.

Is that the app or the web site?

The problem is: you don't want to have to setup and maintain your own map server when the Google alternative is include some JavaScript for free. For all I like OSM I can't see me going to a customer and tell him to spend 1000 per year (possibly more, HW plus labour) on that. Chances are the project goes to somebody else. What OSM needs is somebody providing a high traffic map server for free. What commercial model could use?

Are they starting to sell cans with a PCI bus or USB plug? Let me guess... Coca Cola Air Card!

Or first worlder that happen to live in a country where the content has not been distributed yet and don't want to wait for months or years or forever. Those piracy-afraid-companies should just bypass all the distributors and stream content directly to all the world at once.

A problem is that limited-purpose computing devices, such as tablets and Chromebooks, may erode the economies of scale that general-purpose computing devices enjoy, making it more expensive for people like you and me who need a real laptop to get a real laptop.

Yes, I do expect that the costs of general purpose computers will grow higher and higher as they'll become exclusively tools for professionals and no more consumer goods. There will be less manufacturers and less choice too.

On the other side there will be a time when one will be able to create a tablet app on a tablet (AIDE is a start) or a chromebook app on a chromebook (easier).

Actually I'm looking forward to a less than 150 g (5 oz) device with at least the computing power of a i5, 8+ GB RAM and 256+ GB of storage, that I can carry around and use as either a smartphone or a computer depending on if it's free or plugged to main power and connected to a screen, keyboard and mouse. The unborn Ubuntu phone was a step in that direction.

I don't think tablets are a fad. They are a zero maintenance and more mobile version of the laptop, much better for the vast majority of people that had to use a computer in the past 20 years only because of the Internet. They're now free from much of the hassle of managing a computer. Chromebooks might be a fat tablet for the guys that really need a keyboard but still don't need a traditional OS. Disclosure: I don't own a tablet because I don't have any clear use case for it. I need to use a "real" laptop and I have a smartphone, tertium non datur.

You're right. Nevertheless MS should still be worried if people buy chromebooks instead of Windows machines. Less sales, less profit for MS. The profit made by chromebook manufacturers doesn't matter. Actually I care about my profit, not theirs. It's much better for me if their margins are thin or even sell at a loss: it means more value for my money.

This is a non authoritative translation of a part of the law that I believe TFA missed, legal-Italian to plain-Italian to plain-English (as good as I can get it). Italics are mine.

Online advertising spaces and sponsored links in search engine result pages that can be viewed on the Italian territory during a visit to a web site or when using on online service on landline or mobile network, must be bought exclusively by companies with a registered Italian VAT account. This applies also to the case in which the sale has been made by the means of media centers, third parties and advertisers.

Think about the implications of the part in italics. Your US company buys an ad in English from Google aimed to the US market. Unfortunately I end up seeing it from my computer located in Italy. Ops, somebody is in trouble now, either you, Google, me or a combination of those three parties. There is nothing in the law about what happens in case of violations and to whom it happens.

Furthermore TFA missed that the law binds companies like Google to register a VAT account in Italy, not to pay taxes there. They'll end up paying just VAT there, which by the way comes from Italians, not from Google. The law aims at quantifying the turnover of those companies in Italy, which can only be estimated now. Unfortunately the way it's worded makes it difficult to enforce.

Luckily a motion (in Italian, Google translation to English here) has already been filed to suspend it. For another take on it you can read this Google translated post from wired.it.

PS: odd thing to do for me on Christmas morning :-)