Joke at my work is someone wanted to use unused memory cycles to enhance copilot and it it taking over.
The other joke was this is how skynet starts.
The fact that servers are being rebooted and still affected means they screwed up something with a cascading failure.
Executives sleeping with Chinese spies is news. Them sleeping with the help is pretty much Tuesday.
Many executive contracts list fireable offenses. Relationships with subordinates is normally on that list. If this affair is true, it gives HR more than enough legal justification to fire him quickly. An affair with a Chinese spy might take a while to determine how that may have affected the company.
That FuD is how BSD justifies maintaining a codebase based entirely on someone else's work but being ok with using it, improving it, and not at all sharing it back.
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.
Linus had a choice of licenses to start with. He chose GPLv2 over BSD or MIT because he thought that the freedom aspect was desirable for such a project.
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.
If you want companies to give back if they use your code, then use GPL.
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.
You sound like a cheerleader for authoritarian police states. Civil disobedience is widely considered to be a valid form of protest against unjust laws. Should Rosa Parks have just sat at the back of the bus? Should Gandhi have told people to just follow the law?
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.
Get off my lawn.
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...
Stinginess with privileges is kindness in disguise. -- Guide to VAX/VMS Security, Sep. 1984
