I think the OP was confused that, having done the google search in the future, he found that his own as-yet-unwritten question was already the top google search result for this. After pausing for a moment to consider the paradox, his head exploded, at which point he returned to the past where his as-yet-unexploded head proceeded to write TFQ.

I think the concept of Opa is neat. Other projects may have tried and failed at this, but maybe the Opa authors could make it work.

However, the choice of license completely precludes me from even trying it. Sure, I release source code for some of the stuff I make (even though nobody looks at it). Here's why:

Let's say I try out Opa, make some side projects with it, fall in love with it, and I get good at it.

Now, either at my day job, or on my own, I come up with super awesome project X that I want to build and release as some sort of money-making venture. We may even want to open-source the code for the site eventually, but we're not sure yet.

If I were to leverage Opa to do this, however, I will have to *pay* to keep my source closed. That's just not acceptable.

I'm sure Boeing, or anyone, could find plenty of volunteers willing to get launched into space... even more so if there's a good chance of making it back alive. A lot of people would (and sometimes do) pay millions for the privilege.

Well, the uranium that powers nuclear power plants was fused together in a previous supernova. So, I'd say that still counts as solar.

I think Slashdot needs more articles about how the RIAA could still stay in business but really please the tech geek crowd by loosening up a bit. Sure, they won't make nearly as much as they're making right now, but I'm sure they'd like to get invited to some of our l33t geek parties, right?

Unfortunately, if this logic actually held, then software would never have been patentable. An algorithm, if you explain it in a certain way, can sound a whole lot like a machine.

Look. It's a *jump to conclusions* mat - that's - *solar powered*.

In other news, an online survey shows that Slashdot users are smarter, better looking, and less likely to live in their parents' basements.

I imagine that AMD has quite a bit to gain from the cross-licensing provision. In fact, they both do. I wouldn't be surprised if they're both worried about competition from mutual rivals such as ARM. This could be a big win for both in that regard.

I work for a company that does .NET development (with a product that doesn't even work outside IE), and yet about 1/4 of the developers use a MacBook (including myself).

They're pricey, but I figure that the cost is really very low considering I use it all day every day. Even if you're just going to run Windows in a VM or Boot Camp most of the time, MacBooks are very high quality machines.

If you don't *have* to run Windows, MacBook wins hands down if you can afford it.