AGPL, along with all code contributed having copyright attributed to the project is the only true way. this is because MIT allows companies to internalize projects and completely co-op them.
The important detail of making this work is creating secondary commercial licenses which companies can use in order not to reveal or contribute code back. this provides a mechanism for open source projects to make money, while protecting the end users. which have come to depend on it, or which may have contributed to it as an author. this need is why the copyright attribution to the project is necessary for all contributions.
I cannot understand why this is not a more commonly chosen path. it really strikes the perfect balance between allowing companies to use code in whatever way they might need to (as long as they are willing to pay for it), creating support for open source projects, and preventing and shitification of successful open source projects which users support.
importantly, any such commercial license is offered should include prohibitions against re-implementation, as well as time limits so that the software cannot continue to be used indefinitely if an unanticipated but non-breaching use creates risk to the original project
thanks for the tips! I am trying to run nixoa on an old Intel iMac and wireless and sounds are broken. I will search for the Broadcom driver you mentioned.
baking is fundamentally a chemical process, and chemical processes are heavily temperature dependent: almost always thermodynamically, but always kinetically.
and the kinetics are affected by the temperature based on the Arrhenius equation that has a temperature term in an inverted negative exponent.
you could use this equation to figure out the right time difference, if you knew the target temperature and your actual (400dC) temperature.
A family member of the dispatcher told AL.com that the young woman was "scared to death" because it was her first job and her harasser was the police chief. She did not report the incident, the family member said, but another employee saw the video and asked her if she OK. That employee alerted supervisors. "She wasn't going to say anything," the family member said, "because she didn't know what to do."
AGPL, along with all code contributed having copyright attributed to the project is the only true way. this is because MIT allows companies to internalize projects and completely co-op them.
The important detail of making this work is creating secondary commercial licenses which companies can use in order not to reveal or contribute code back. this provides a mechanism for open source projects to make money, while protecting the end users. which have come to depend on it, or which may have contributed to it as an author. this need is why the copyright attribution to the project is necessary for all contributions.
I cannot understand why this is not a more commonly chosen path. it really strikes the perfect balance between allowing companies to use code in whatever way they might need to (as long as they are willing to pay for it), creating support for open source projects, and preventing and shitification of successful open source projects which users support.
importantly, any such commercial license is offered should include prohibitions against re-implementation, as well as time limits so that the software cannot continue to be used indefinitely if an unanticipated but non-breaching use creates risk to the original project