I think rule 12 covers the vowel, and then rule 20 explains why it's sï+ not skï+ but I could be wrong about whether the vowel is a front vowel or not.
This very similar to the "if you wash recycling in water heated via coal burn generated electricity then it creates CO2" argument.
Okay, let's stop burning coal then, because we use electricity for a lot more things than just recycling.
Similarly, if cotton is that bad for the environment, maybe we need to fix that generally rather than just switch to disposable plastic bags for this one minor use case?
I don't think the internet can funciton as a public platform, which it both is and should continue to be, without allowing infrastucture providers to provide services without being selective in who they provide them to.
Also the details of America's legal implementation of the principle of free speach don't resolve the moral debate over what constitutes censorship, especially in regards to a global platform like the internet.
As long as actual ISPs remain neutral the Internet is an open platform, if you have a controversial position you may just have to do your own hosting as you are not entitled to demand others do so for you.
They already aren't neutral. For example, if you mirror or seed a Kali ISO, you're in violation of Comcast's TOS (even if you have business-class service), which says you may not "distribute tools or devices designed or used for compromising security or whose use is otherwise unauthorized, such as password guessing programs, decoders, password gatherers, keystroke loggers, analyzers, cracking tools, packet sniffers, encryption circumvention devices, or Trojan Horse programs."
If you own the copyright to the application then you do not need a license to use it. The case where you would be violating a license would be if someone else owns the copyright to parts of the application, for example because you accepted code from external contributers under the AGPL, or reused other AGPL code.
So, It's best to use permissible license for the open-source version of the application in case of dual-license if we want to take back the contributions to our non open-source version.
I see this is what dual-licensed projects seem to do, I use open-source version of Aseprite[1] under MIT but I paid for the license on their website under EULA.
If anyone has seen a dual-licensed project where the open-source version is under AGPL or similar restrictive license then please mention.
> So, It's best to use permissible license for the open-source version of the application in case of dual-license if we want to take back the contributions to our non open-source version.
That's one option; the other is to require that contributors assign you copyright of their contributions (perhaps with compensation) so you can release it in the same manner as your own code.
Narrowly focused on the effectiveness of the dual license scheme itself, permissive licenses "don't work as well" because there is less incentive for anyone to pay you for the other license; typically all they'd be avoiding is the attribution requirements.
> That's one option; the other is to require that contributors assign you copyright of their contributions (perhaps with compensation)
I thought about it before I made my previous comment, Good to know this is a thing.
> permissive licenses "don't work as well" because there is less incentive for anyone to pay you for the other license; typically all they'd be avoiding is the attribution requirements.
As far consumers are concerned, I think it largely depends upon the project; If it's complex to setup and run then I guess people would use the hosted version. I use open-source Aseprite because it's available on AUR, But I did pay for the license on their website which I presume most wouldn't.
Perhaps the real concern with permissible license are the competitors, Who get to use your code to reduce their barrier for entry. Then again, Software code at current times aren't that big of a barrier to entry.
One thing which all these discussions prove to me is that open-source application funding is very complex, Depending upon it for livelihood with just good will of the consumers is very risky as consumers are on average poor and corporations are on average greedy.
As you say, it depends a lot on the project, but you're thinking too narrowly when it comes to types of projects. IME, dual license is most applicable to libraries that might wind up in native applications. With, say, "GPL or pay us for proprietary" a company trying to ship a native app is faced with the choice of not using the library, paying for the library, or releasing their product under the GPL to use the library while avoiding paying for it.
Interesting find, I took a cursory look at their GitHub[1] and they seem to accept PR from outside but I didn't find any explicit mention of copyright transfer; Perhaps because there's no separate version of sequence.js for commercial use(Just use case differentiation).
> there's no separate version of sequence.js for commercial use
A separate version is "open core", not "dual license" - that's a different business model.
Use case differentiation by means of providing the same thing under different licenses is what dual license (or multi license) means. One license (say, GPL) will be appropriate to some use cases (downstream open source projects) but not for other use cases (downstream proprietary software) and so the latter has to pay for a license other than the GPL.
> I didn't find any explicit mention of copyright transfer
It's possible they know the people who've submitted code outside of github and handled it out of band, or that github has some way I've missed of requiring submissions to assign copyright in a way that wouldn't be visible to us. It's also possible they're being legally reckless and might be subjecting their paying customers to potential (if perhaps unlikely) copyright claims from their submitters. There is nothing about it being the same code under both licenses that would imply they wouldn't need their submitters' blessing in some form to sell their code under the proprietary license, and the more implicit blessing the more likely it'll wind up in court at some point.
> the need for having a permissible license for the dual-license.
A more permissive license generally improves adoption. For the same level of adoption, a less permissive license drives more revenue in the dual-license model. Maybe a permissive license is still the way to go (certainly getting adoption is often difficult), but it is not the dual license situation motivating that. Contrast a "give away the software and sell support" business model, where (sufficient) adoption is everything and more restrictions on the license doesn't do anything for the business.
With a maximally permissive license, I hesitate to call it "dual licensing", as it stops being the license your paying customers are actually paying for but rather hosting, support, or warm fuzzies.
> a less permissive license drives more revenue in the dual-license model.
But we've so far encountered just one example for that, Even there we don't know the financial status to claim whether it's indeed more successful (revenue wise when compared to a permissible license).
On the other hand we have numerous successful products (by revenue) with permissible licenses incl. those sighted in the OP.
On the other hand I am almost always annoyed at apps opening websites in SFSafariViewController, and would prefer to be able to completely disable it and have it always open in the real browser.
They want to be able to process both the material they prototyped with and the material they started with (straw) and the material they tried to scale up with (corn cobs), and probably any kind of plant matter that has less structural integrity than say, timber.
What you are complaining about is actually the exact tactics of the left, which is to expand their city boundaries so that their dense homogenous voters swing elections in the surrounding districts.
When the left does it’s called redistributing, when the right does it it’s called gerrymandering.
The ability to rely on another person's body to keep you alive is clearly a positive right if it exists, which I think no one believes in general, some but people believe in the specific case of pregnancy, because it's "natural". Plenty of things we believe are violations of rights are also "natural" so I don't think this is a consistent position to take, of course people don't generally pick their ethics for consistency.
> The ability to rely on another person's body to keep you alive is clearly a positive right if it exists
That is one way to frame it. Usually, though, abortion requires someone to actively kill the fetus.
And there is another problem with this argument. The sacrifice it takes for the woman to carry the baby for 9 months may not be the real reson people have abortions. Rather, I imagine, the real reason is that they don't want what happens AFTER the child is born.
Let's consider a similar argument: A ship crew on an oil tanker going from Saudi Arabia to Huston discovers an uninvited "passenger" hiding in the ship. A 5 year old girl, let's say. Do they have an obligation to feed this girl until they reach LA, or can they throw her overboard?
Now, from a purely postive rights argument, one could say they're not allowed to throw her overboard, but they also are not required to feed her. But we all know that's not going to happen.
I mean I basically want Apple to do this to any proprietary software and untrustworthy free software, I just want to be able to make an exception for trustworthy free software.
Given what I use my phone for I’m happy enough with the current compromise, so long as I have access to a general purpose computer.
Even if Apple allows other browser engines I think they should still ban Chrome.
