You seem to prefer hiring people who run around, and never get anything accomplished. Well, great for your ego.
If the tech he is supposed to keep running is running, he did his job.
One would not fire a doorman for sitting around idle, just as one would not fire a firefighter who is waiting for the next fire.
So what is my position on this guy wanting money for writing software, whether it is doing in his spare time is questionable, since he admits to having idle time?
Well, I think he should negotiate a pay raise for exceeding his duties, but only after giving them the software. Holding it back is no good, since they might just reject it, and no-one would be off better.
If he gets no pay raise he should stop working on the software when on off-duty and consider leaving the company. Which is even more fun if they now have software that he could have supported best.
Maybe people shouldn't give immune response suppressing medication like Advil = ibuprofen, especially if the fever is not critical. I know wifes who freak out if the fever is even 1 degree higher than the normal temperature.
See this paper here, it is from 1990.
"Adverse effects of aspirin, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen on immune function, viral shedding, and clinical status in rhinovirus-infected volunteers."
There is a reason that homeopathy sometimes works, and the reason is that sometimes no medication is the best medication.
There are studies which show that DNA and RNA can both survive digestion.
While that is no big reason to worry over GM food more than to worry over some strange food from the jungle that you don't know, it is still possible that GM foods can be dangerous.
This is especially true when the GM crops were altered such that lots of strange proteins are created, for example when the GM crops create their own poisons against crop diseases.
There are also other issues surrounding GM crops; One of the most worrying is the possibility that some GM crops contribute to honey bee colony collapse, and bees are vital to growing crops.
Another problem with GM crops is that they are often altered to produce seeds that do not grow into new crops, and even when that is not the case, farmers are forbidden by patents to grow and sow their own seeds.
While a rich country may don't care about this, it can be fatal for people in a poor country.
Well, your guitar is not considered to be under copyright.
So open source licenses do not apply to your project, since, well, there is no binary.
So you can Either choose a creative commons license, there are lots of them to choose from.
Or, you could make your own license, along the lines of the GPL, which would disallow people from selling your guitars unless they passed on the files that told how to construct them with the guitar. That alone would be in the spirit of an open source license. The EFF would probabaly help you with that. Or you could look at the RepRap community, it has experience with that topic.
Also, you don't have to offer a license at all.
You could for example, forbid all people to use the files, but hope secretly that all people pirated your files.
In this line of thinking, you could also add a pirate licensing terms, which might just state:
All people who distribute my files are pirates.
Well, that would be kind of strange, so I guess what I really should have said is this:
It really depends on what you want from your license.
I would suggest you restate the question somewhere, but include what you want from the license.
It is more like blaming the houseowner for putting handles on the doors, since these faciliate entry.
Well, it is unlikely that the German coast guard have many offices in Munich. However, thanks to advances in military computing, the army can now order submarine parts in Munich, if they feel like it.
I would consider any of these
an open source license, since others do.
Yes, BSD can sometimes be substituted with the GPL, since it is more permissive, and by that I mean that you can do more with BSD licensed source code, for example merge it with business source code in one binary.
However, the same is not true for program binaries distributed under the BSD license, because these may contain components that you will not get a license for.
So, if you want to improve a binary that includes BSD as a customer, you are bound to violate licensing terms.
The BSD license is not the main target of my arguments in the previous post, but other licenses are, which are completely incompatible with the GPL, both regarding source and binary.
The GPL concept comes from a time when a few companies like IBM, which were used to selling "big" mainframes, also owned the software on these machines. If these companies had successfully cornered the personal software market, even more people still would be stuck in using proprietary software.
If you release software to people, you are sharing the code already. It is just undocumented, in a format that can only easily be converted to assembler code, and only rude people who don't care about copyright law can use it.
If someone likes your program, and wants a legit copy that he can improve, he will have to spend extra work.
So GPL'ed code saves peoples' work, and without paying for it. Naturally, business doesn't like that.
One reason to be for the GPL as a FOSS license is that it is there.
There often are problems with merging code and projects under different licenses,
and having more of them, isn't better.
Not all popular licenses are FOSS licenses.
The BSD license is a permissive license.
Calling it a business license would be as sensible.
Many good intentions have been invested in the GPL.
It is a license with a concept behind it.
The KERNEL32.DLL wrapper provided by OldBoy2k and OldCigarette also makes executables with EncodePointer/DecodePointer work in windows 2000.
This ruling implies that Apple stole the technology from Motorola, and the lawsuit is Motorola's attempt to force Apple to relent.
No. Depending on the country the patent in question was issued in, it implies that Motorola was either the first to visit the patent office, or first to make the discovery.
Stealing would imply reading the patent, or other sources associated to Motorola, and acting upon it.
It also would imply that all of the patent is valid, in the sense that other requirements for a patent apply, as required by the various jurisdictions (that is practically none except prior art in the USA, but a certain level of inventiveness in the EU, and the exclusion of some fields in the EU, for example mathematics.).
It has been pointed out to me, so I'd like to point it out myself:
trickle-down-effect is being used to refer to the movement of technology, products, and behavior from wealthy people to less wealthy people.
trickle-down-economics or trickle-down-theory refers to the argument that by making wealthy people more wealthy, the income trickles down to the entire economy.
I would guess the latter is meant here.
I always knew there was a reason why we weren't understanding each other.