... As long as you can get them to commit the changes, you're ensured that those changes are now on a server/machine that is getting backed up and taken care of.
I solved this problem at my last job by setting up a testing environment that pulled changes from the repository. It helped that the system being worked on was large and complex enough that it would be a pain in the ass to try to set up a local copy on your own machine for testing, so everyone would just use the test server, which, in order to use, required a commit to the development repository so the test server could pull the commit and put it into testing (in fact, this was accomplished in the post-commit script). The SVN server would receive commits from every developer continually through the day, and even the tiny change always had at least one "backup" somewhere.
The only downside to this is commit log pollution, but it wasn't really a problem -- these tiny commits would just have an empty log comment that could be easily ignored, and when things were finally working well, the changes would then be merged into the main branch with a properly documented commit.
You can do whatever you want with your own software. Only other people require a license, and are bound by the terms of it. License terms do not apply to the copyright owner -- that doesn't even make any sense.
IMHO, it does seem like stealing from the people that gave their time for free to contribute to the software.
You cannot steal what already belongs to you. Even if it was a gift.
Exactly. Trolls and fanboys are a signal-to-noise issue, nothing more.
...and when there's too much noise, it drowns out the signal. Trolls allowed to run amok are an effective form of censorship, preventing anyone else from having their voice heard. The "grow a skin or log off" group think censorship is fine, as long as it's not done by moderators.
For those of us in non-USA English-speaking countries, the situation is strange. We're not American citizens, we have no vote for the US president or Joint Chief of Staffs, yet our leaders take their orders from your leaders. This means that we've all become very interested in American politics, even though we'd rather not. Because you guys in the State may think you're only electing your own local town mayor and dogcatchers, but you're actually choosing who will run the military and spy infrastructures of the whole Western world.
Ha, I wish... all I get to vote for is politicians. We don't actually get to vote for the people the politicians take their orders from, nor are the people who set and implement national military or economic policy in any way democratically selected or answerable to anyone but (in theory) their shareholders (and even that's not really the case).
There is no requirement to hold a trial for POWs.
What's that got to do with anything? We're insisting that these people are not POWs (otherwise, they'd be entitled to a bunch of protections under the Geneva convention).
Now now, don't confuse Senator Obama with President Obama. They're entirely different people...
(I'm not sure to what extent I'm joking...)
Even if they are using SSL between the front end and the middle tier, self signed certs are probably used between those layers and its "game over" anyway in that case.
You think whether the cert is self-signed or not is relevant in this case, you fundamentally misunderstand the problem. Having Verisign sign the cert wouldn't do jack-diddly-squat here.
Well... he's lying about one of these two things: Either Snowden had access to classified information and is a credible source... or he didn't have access, in which case he can't be a traitor, because he's not giving away government secrets, since he never had them to begin with.
Snowden made a large list of claims. If just one of them is true, or even partially true, he can both not have the access he claims to have and still be considered a traitor. I like what Snowden did, but I'm pointing out a really obvious flaw in your logic.
The really obvious flaw in your logic is that it requires more than the claim to be true. If I claim the US is secretly recording the content of conversations between Americans (based on my personal speculation), that doesn't make me a traitor, even if it's true. On the other hand, I'm arguably a traitor if the government gives me access to that information and I then betray my NDA/oath/security clearance and reveal it. He really did need to have the access he claims, or it's not really treason, because he's not revealing anything, he's just speculating and saying frankly what speculators on Slashdot have been saying for years. They don't all become traitors if their speculation turns out to be correct.
I'll get hate for pointing this out but then again common sense seems to be poison to the politically correct, but if most of your troubles are coming from one group, how about keeping more of the group from coming over and keeping a closer eye on the ones you got, how about that?
You do realize that the majority of mass killings and other terrorist incidents in the U.S. have been the result of the actions of right-wing white male Christians, right?
Apparently, it's sexist when hired female sales staff ("booth babes") wear T-shirts, makeup, and big hair. But apparently it is OK to use your feminine wiles if you declare yourself a feminist and a female technologist (and apparently, you don't actually need to know much about technology to do so). Can someone who is well versed in the intricacies of sexism and political correctness please explain who is allowed to wear revealing clothes under what circumstances, and who is not?
Anyone is allowed to if they want to. It's a problem when your boss tells you to and makes it a job requirement.
It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.