And all porn should be labelled, and we should prevent people from removing those labels.

If it's an NFC equipped passport, it's possible for the NFC reader to read it while it's still in your pocket. Using the slot is still "essentially theater", but it's designed to make sure the passport is close enough. Wouldn't be surprised if there's a fallback optical reader too.

Atia, M, Hilal, A.R. (Allaa R.), Stellings, C. (Clive), Hartwell, E. (Eric), Toonstra, J. (Jason), Miners, W.B. (William B.), & Basir, O.A. (Otman A.). (2017). A Low-Cost Lane-Determination System Using GNSS/IMU Fusion and HMM-Based Multistage Map Matching. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems. doi:10.1109/TITS.2017.2672541

"Gigster charges a flat fee, which the company is getting better at determining, so there is no incentive for developers to work more hours and run up charges"

I do not think their definition of software development matches what we do for a living. Seems to me the time spent matches the difficulty of the problem, not the greed of the developer. Unless, of course, you're reinventing code you already invented, in which case you can "estimate" precisely...

"It converts a client’s product proposal into a development plan, and helps Gigster’s army of remote developers plug in pre-made code blocks to efficiently build the app."

Surely if you're just hooking up pre-made code blocks, then you can do it yourself without paying the middleman. Either this is just another name for a consulting company, or their business model involves paying developers piecework rates. They don't seem to realize that if we want to develop for no pay we can do open source, and still use the product ourselves.

This totally makes sense, but not if you restrict it to photos. When you find an audio or video file online where information identifying the owner is missing, all you have to do made a "diligent" search for the original owner and it's yours for free to use, resell, or whatever. No more lawsuits! Everybody's happy!

>> You don't relinquish copyright ownership of code you wrote by incorporating GPL'd code into your application, you're just required to make your source available.

You're right. The company still keeps full copyright ownership of the proprietary code. What I should have said is that the company also loses control over millions of dollars worth of R&D that went into developing the rest of the application, and, by publishing it, loses any competitive advantage it may have had.

That, of course, is the intent of the GPL: Any application that uses GPL-licensed code must release all its secrets to the community. GPL believes that information wants to be free.

>>Don't like it? Sorry, that's what the author of the code you got for and investment of $0 decided upon when they chose to distribute what they wrote --and own.

Yes, of course. But the original question is whether it's good for business to subsidize OSS. My business would love to subsidize OSS projects and share the result with the world (2 weeks @ $100/hour = $7,000). We're happy giving the results of that work back to the community.

What my company can't afford to do is donate everything else as well (2 years x 5 people x $100/hour = more than you like). The whole point of running a software business is to make back the money you spent developing the software, plus a little more.

Many people that say, "information wants to be free" really mean that information should be free to them. If you really believe everything should be free, how about freeing up your credit card information? I'm sure lots of people would love to share with you.