I first met Bill over video-chat during 2020 and we got to know each other a bit. He later sent me a gift that changed my life. We hadn't talked for the past couple years, but I know he experienced "death" before and was as psychologically prepared as anyone could be. I have no doubt that he handled the biggest trip of his life with grace. We didn't always see eye-to-eye when it came to software, but we did share a mutual interest in the unknown, and the meaning of it all. Meet ya on the other side, Bill.
You weren't forced to do anything. You submitted to peer pressure, and that was a decision that, along with millions of others making that same decision, led to the current state. The very state that you're now complaining about.
Government intervention, or legal system intervention is one way in which millions are collectively deciding to move away from the current state. In theory at least.
Shameful, especially here in Wisconsin where the minimum wage is still set to $7.25/hour. And even more shameful the tactics used by gig-companies like Uber and DoorDash to depress their own liabilities, and worker wages, even further down.
"No business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt
I'm ambivalent about a Federal minimum wage, it's probably mostly harmless, and maybe helps people at the margin. But. No minimum wage allows small businesses to hire the unhireable (eg. teenagers), which gives them a first step on the wage ladder.
I looked up Wisconsin wage stats in Gemini[1].
Wage Bracket (Hourly) Estimated Percentage of Jobs Wage Bracket (Annual)
Under $12.29 Approximately 13% Under $25,560
$12.29 to $15.27 Approximately 13% $25,560 to $31,771
$15.28 to $18.26 Approximately 16% $31,772 to $37,983
$18.26 to $21.25 Approximately 14% $37,984 to $44,195
$21.25 to $24.23 Approximately 11% $44,196 to $50,407
$24.23 to $27.22 Approximately 10% $50,408 to $56,619
$27.22 to $30.21 Approximately 8% $56,620 to $62,831
$30.21 to $33.19 Approximately 5% $62,832 to $69,044
$33.19 to $36.18 Approximately 5% $69,045 to $75,256
$36.18 to $39.17 Approximately 4% $75,257 to $81,468
$39.17 to $42.15 Approximately 4% $81,469 to $87,680
$42.15 to $45.14 Approximately 4% $87,681 to $93,893
$45.14 and over Data not specifically itemized in this format, but represents the remaining percentage of jobs $93,893 and over
Simple competition likely drives wages well above the State mandated minimum wage.
[1] "create a distribution table of the population to wages of workers in Wisconsin"
This is funny because I was the operations assistant (office secretary) at the time we received this letter, and I remember it because of the distinct postage.
I met a web developer working for the FSF at a Boston pub one night while in town for a Red Hat conference. After many drinks, he walked us down fifth street to the FSF office building. I wasn’t sure what to expect but when we got there, he typed in some numbers on the door entry system, and what came out was RMS singing the free software song lol. It was a wonderful treat for a young Linux nerd on a hazy adventure in the early morning
I love that your story could be read in two different ways: (1) a recording of RMS appeared on the door entry system screen, or (2) the man himself waltzed out of that door and started singing.
How wonderful! Since the game of the day seems to be the technicalities of the minutiae, could you explain the decision to send the GPLv3 vs GPLv2? Is this a request that happens often?
> There was a problem that I noticed right away, though: this text was from the GPL v3, not the GPL v2. In my original request I had never mentioned the GPL version I was asking about.
>The original license notice makes no mention of GPL version either. Should the fact that the license notice contained an address have been enough metadata or a clue, that I was actually requesting the GPL v2 license? Or should I have mentioned that I was seeking the GPLv2 license?
This is seemingly a problem with the GPL text itself, in that it doesn't mention which license version to request when you mail the FSF.
A Sid Caesar skit showed doughboys celebrating and one shouted "World War 1 is over!"... when they made GPLv2 maybe they didn't anticipate creating future versions (although yeah, if you're already on v2 you should foresee that).
Well to be fair, that's not the full license notice, that's only the last paragraph. There should a couple more above that one and the first paragraph says the version of GPL in use. That said I think the license notice is also just a suggested one, it's not required that you use that _exact_ text.
How does a sender who only has a GPLv2 license notice even know that there is a v3? Should they first send a letter asking which versions are available?
If the sender requests GPLv2, he should receive GPL version 2.
If the sender requests GPL, I find it natural for him to receive version 3, because it's the latest version. At the time of receiving the license, he gains knowledge about the existence of version 3 (the header on the print says the GPL he received is version 3).
If the sender has a notice about GPLv2, it means that there's a high chance that there's also GPLv1. This should be a sufficient hint that requesting only "GPL" is not sufficient, because the sender should be aware of the risk of receiving GPLv1 if he won't mention the "v2".
the usual license header has something along the lines of "either version [23], or at your discretion, any subsequent version", which clearly explains that there are specific versions with distinct rules. Many people opt not to include this clause because they (understandably) don't want to automatically agree to a contract that hasn't even been written yet. However if they fail to make the version clear that's on them.
Anyways I don't think this defense would ever fly in court. As soon as the plaintiff's lawyers produce evidence that you are aware of GPLv3 (such as pointing out that you have GPLv3 software on your PC or phone) the judge is going to see that you're trying to game the system on technicality and sanction you. Judges really don't like this sly loophole BS where it's extremely obvious that you're feigning ignorance for the sake of constructing an alternate reality where you hypothetically never knew there was a GPLv3.
At FSF, someone would call every month thinking they had been "hacked" and that FSF was responsible because they found "evidence left behind" (the GPL).
Recent elections show that capital interests are able to spend unlimited amounts of money buying political influence to prevent a pro-working-class candidate from ever touching any true levers of power.
I don't see how publicly shaming someone (and yes, this is how I interpret the intend of your question) for the act of thanking the author of a project is going to help anyone.
It is offered free of charge, so why should it be despicable to use it free of charge? Maybe they do actually donate to the project, contribute code, or support in other means.
For example this very post where they thank the author is probably a source of motivation and acknowledgement that might have a positive impact on the project. They could have refrained from doing this but instead they took the time to write a very enthusiastic comment.
Sure it's offered free of charge -- and immediately next to the big "Download" button is a big "Donate" button.
> Maybe they do actually donate to the project, contribute code, or support in other means.
Maybe instead of shaming, the question is a cue for them to mention one of those things.
---
In the US it's Thanskgiving week. It's nice to give thanks. It can also be nice to give other things -- like support to a project that has saved/made your company non-trivial money. Not required, but nice.
To be clear, I think it would be fair if they answer something like: "I am trying to get my company to contribute... but as my original story showed, my company is pretty shitty at making simple decisions." :)
I say this all as someone who has paid for SQLiteStudio: if you don't see the connection between paying for open-source software, and open-source software sustainability (aka "having nice things"), then your brain is totally cooked. Money is energy, and without it, there will continue to be yet another "why open-source desperately needs funding" front page post every week.
Not one other person in these comments mentions paying for this work. That is worth embarrassing those who are all talk, no action. They are doing worse than ordinary virtue signalling--they're phony virtue signaling.
Giving compliments are fine, but put them in the donation message box.
reply