Those of us that maintain/maintained *BSD has absolutely been contributing back to it. And so has most of the companies that have used code derived from it.

Your lack of understanding of the licenses and their economics shows through. I think you've been hanging out with copyleft FUD providers, since you're repeating copyleft FUD. Companies will contribute changes back to BSD codebases - just not always *all* changes. But more changes than if they instead got a source license for something else, like QNX or Windows. As a former BSD developer, my clear impression is that since the formation of Free/Net/OpenBSD the vast majority of relevant proprietary changes have been offered back to the open source projects. And by "relevant" I mean "changes that had a meaningful chance of being merged back into the mainline project".

Relevant changes not being merged back (e.g. that FreeBSD hasn't accepted the changes from MacOS) has typically been due to lack of review capacity rather than the changes not being offered.

Because he had been taken in by rms' propaganda about how the GPL increases freedom, as most of us was before we thought really really hard about it. Many haven't thought hard enough about it yet to change their minds.

This hides the cost of the GPL. A more appropriate formulation is

"If you want to force companies to give back all changes they make to your software at the cost of having them unable to make use of your software and contribute back at all in cases where they could only give back some of their changes, use the GPL."

I was a FreeBSD developer back in the day. I have worked for companies that made changes to open source software, both as the person doing those changes and in other situations where my team utilized open sourced code and other internal teams made modifications to it. My experience is that companies want to give back anything that is not strategic, and the changes they make to BSD-licensed code bases (really, all code bases) are mostly utilitarian rather than strategic. They want to give back for several pragmatic reasons: It avoids maintenance costs for their changes, it is good PR, their engineers feel good about doing it, and it creates a good relationship to the upstream project, meaning that if they need help, they're likely to get it.

In my experience companies contribute more to BSD/MIT licensed code bases than to GPLed codebases. It is very seldom that it would make sense for a company to make a change to a codebase under GPL and give it back and it would not have made sense to give it back under BSD/MIT. It may be different from individuals. Some individuals believe companies deriving from BSD/MIT-licensed code bases and don't give all their changes back are exploitative, and thus those individuals avoid working on BSD/MIT-licensed codebases.

Of course, if we convince people that companies working on BSD/MIT codebases is typically not exploitative, then the individual part will also impove.

I still think /. has the best moderation system, the balance between anon posters (sometimes useful), pseudonymous posters, moderating and (still broken) moderation is good because it's done by the users themselves (not by pros or bots) and the exclusions between them force you to make choices. In other word you can't have a bot downvoting everyone. I don't know why it's not more commonplace, with regular compelled meta-moderation.

While I don't disagree per se that this should be the model, I do wonder which reality you live in where it currently is.

I will not say black is "special" but you cannot simply replace it with another color. There is no function that a male in the US cannot attend wearing black. The only thing a man can wear that's even simpler in its appropriateness for all events is a military uniform.

I've had the privilege of working with Jim Sachs back in the Amiga days, when his work was the benchmark for hand-drawn digital art. He did all the UI artwork for Commodore's CDTV -- to name just one of his many works. He's an exceptionally accomplished programmer and artist, hard worker, and principled guy.

SereneScreen's "big break" came when it was included with Microsoft Plus! for (I think) Windows XP. It was a limited version that you could upgrade to a full version. Selling screen savers was not so crazy an idea back then, as Berkeley Systems had been doing it with After Dark for the Mac for over ten years at that point.

And frankly I think $80K/year for exclusive rights was a bargain. Half the price of a single engineer? Roku got off cheap. Hell, they probably paid more for the HDMI licenses.

Oh, and Google? Amazon? Apple? Now's your chance.

One of my 1st job was to upgrade a scientific data acquisition system from 1970 Unix to DOS. Then to Win3. Then to Win95. Then to Win2K. Then to Win10. Each time upgrading some of the hardware too. It still runs and there's still some of the original code in it (not very much, but in the core processing, and it's so compact you tear your hair out trying to understand why it manipulates bits to speed up multiplications or something).

I remember from long ago papers about ocean macro and micro-plastics that they are favorable to growing alga and micro-alga on their surface. So that would explain an increase in green quite simply without invoking the color of the plastic itself.

I always wonder what is the purpose of this long delay between elections and taking power in the US. To give enough time to the incumbent to burn papers, hide their bad deeds and prepare another Jan 6th ? In most other countries you have an election on a sunday and taking power on the next weekend. That leaves just enough time for possible recounts and that's it.

So, AI is making up what your camera is pointing at ? So great...

The specs state:
> Zoom further. See more.
> Get closer to the action with Super Zoom Pro, reaching up to 100x with generative AI for impressive detail

Am I not the only one not impressed?

Brave browser steals advertiser's tokens and inserts its own, to bring money to the organisation. It was hijacking links, and inserting its own affiliate codes.

I thought that was PayPal/Honey's shtick...

I don't understand how that could work. In order to know which weight to change, don't you need to understand the complete model first... like a meta-model ? Obviously more complex and bigger than the one you want to affect ?