What suggestion would you make for them to be able to make a living off of open source software?
EDIT: also, it's LGPL or $80/developer-month, not and. I don't see anything about royalties. And considering the GPL doesn't apply until you start distributing the software, you don't need to spend that money during development. You can wait to license when you release and start getting revenue.
That's for Qt for Devices. Conditions aren't public, but: "To learn about Qt for Device Creation pricing – developer licenses and embedded device distribution fees – start the conversation now"
also, it's LGPL or $80/developer-month, not and.
It's actually more like $300/dev/month unless you qualify as a startup.
I don't know whether this has changed, but they used to forbid you from developing with the open source edition and then releasing under a commercial licence. (They did this with a term in the commercial licence that specified that it couldn't be used with code previously developed with the open source edition.)
This was quite a confusing policy in some ways. I think in practice they expected to resolve such situations by backdating payments for the commercial licence to cover the development period.
(Edit: from https://www.qt.io/faq/#_Toc_3_13 it looks like the policy is unchanged but the wording around it has been softened a bit to encourage negotiation)
That is the license terms, but so long as you haven't distributed it before you go to sales and explain the situation they are willing to come to an agreement. Probably this means you pay for all the license term you should have. Something to that effect is even on their pages if you dig around.
The important part is once you realize you have the wrong license you contact sales admit your mistake and make a good faith effort to correct things.
3.13 (and 3.12) sounds primarily for avoiding that a company has 30 developers with only the 1 developer (or CI bot) that does the release having a Qt commercial license.
Or that you develop for 12 months and get a commercial license the last month,, when its going to be released.
Royalties are way high compared to some of the other mature commercial toolkits out there (like Altia or VAPS).
Last time we quoted for our smallish product (1-2K EAU), Qt wanted $5 or $6/unit, purchased in blocks of 1,000 licenses at a time. That was too much of a hit on our BOM, so we went LGPL and haven't looked back.
Is there a good explanation somewhere as to what someone can and cannot make/sell/open/close with Qt? Last I saw, platforms that allow precompiled dynamically-linked libraries (i.e. everything but iOS) could have the LGPL stuff in a separate binary file. But if you linked the code in directly, you couldn't distribute your application without the source.
I wish there was a FAQ with easy answers like "If you write an iOS app with Qt, you can close the source if you pay us a license fee" or something along that line.
IIRC, Xamarin had similar problems, but that went away when they were purchased.
That is because in the iOS app store, Apple is distributing the app. And they are not willing to obey the obligations of the (L)GPL regarding offering the recipients the source code they have the right so. So Apple has banned code with such licenses from the appstore.
"The annual survey looked at 18 different companies, smeared across 10 different criteria, ranging from strategy, to core tech development, to manufacturing capability and staying power, and a company that’s over 100 years old ended up leading the list."
Why does 'manufacturing capability and staying power' correlate to 'potential in the world of autonomous driving'? It doesn't matter if you can pump out a thousand cars an hour if they crash a mile down the road. This should be based on core tech development only..
> This should be based on core tech development only..
What good is the tech if you can't put it into production? There are real design and manufacturing issues to deal with, and a company that doesn't take that into consideration and give it the attention it deserves likely won't do well in the long run.
I think GM deserves to be at the top of the list. Cruise is very quickly closing the gap between themselves and Waymo, and they have a comitted car company to back them up. The jury is still out as to whether Ford can make good headway on their 'secret sauce', which is now in the hands of Argo.ai.
Yeah, Cruise seems to be doing a great job. Argo has a great founding team, but there are still a lot of things that can go wrong. While I'd give Argo the edge in technical competence (I realize that's not a very meaningful statement considering the age of the company), what really matters is building the right product at the right time. You can have a ton of great engineers and still not accomplish much in the market - just look at Waymo and Uber.
The way I see it, at least in the US, it's really GM vs Ford (which is Cruise vs Argo). Waymo has a management crisis and lost most of their top talent, and Uber is hemorrhaging talent (and money). Apart from that there are various startups but I don't believe they'll ever get the money necessary to compete with the big players - even Google gave up on that front.
Outside the US I'm excited to see what happens with Volvo, which says they'll have 100 stage 4 vehicles delivered to customers by the end of the year.
If the people are explaining politely why Trump is a bigot and why they support Hillary, what's the problem? Just because people having a discussion don't share your viewpoints doesn't make the discussion less valid.
I think in general overuse of "reply all" has been publicly shamed in recent years. Internet etiquette has evolved past sending chain mail office jokes.
The Washington Post carries a comic strip called "Reply All". It is not particularly tech-oriented, striking me as a millenial version of the old "Cathie" comic strip.
In a similar vein, there's pictures online of a "computer lab" in North Korea shown to visitors. There's people typing away at computers, which is seemingly normal, until you realize none of the computer have electricity.
Perhaps nobody's denying that China doesn't value personal freedom as highly as the west does, or that you can have a beautiful, rich and fullfilling life with 2 children or less.
Some, myself included, do deny that it could benefit the earth if more governments would enforce limits on children. I think humans are important to the future of the earth, and treating them in a cruel and brutal fashion will cause more problems than it solves.
You're in luck. human overpopulation is mostly a solved problem thanks to modern contraception. To curb it all one needs is to build a robust economy and make it avaliable. No need for state policy beyond it, people will do it themselves.
Larger creatures, and those higher on the food chain, having greater access to resources and higher survival rates, invest more in fewer children. Smaller creatures, with lesser access to resources and higher mortality rates, invest less in more children.
A rabbit doe can theoretically have 480 offspring, at 12 per litter, 10 times per year, over 4 years. That's the kind of thing you might do if 98% of your kids get eaten, because you will still have 10 left. Rabbits can also abort their litters when stressed.
An elephant might have one calf every four years, over 55 years, or a maximum of 14 children. That's what you might do if only one other species can reliably kill any of you, and you expect all of your babies to survive to adulthood.
With humans, the observed historical behavior is that poor or uneducated humans are relatively fecund, producing 8-30 children per pair, occasionally with multiple births. As wealth and education increase, and particularly when child mortality drops and elder care becomes socialized, birth rate drops down to the population replacement rate (or below). Middle-class first-worlders usually have 0-4 kids.
It solved the problem so well that the human race is actually likely to go extinct over the long run. Just need to get Africa and India on board with the program.
Africa and India to play ball. The wealthy West limiting its procreation doesn't buy much for the Earth when somewhere else, poor families are pumping out children by the dozens.
Africa and India don't have widely available contraception, high levels of education, and low rates of infant mortality. Solve those problems and people will have fewer kids.
Yes, but we are a) not growing, b) moving to greener energy sources. Compare with Africa and Asia exiting poverty with positive growth, lots of people, and little clean energy infrastructure.
I'm starting to think it's in our best interest to start building nuclear reactors pro bono all over Africa - you don't want them all to rise their standards of living by burning coal.
I would also guess most of the drivers who complain live in a city that lacks proper bike lanes. Bikes wouldn't need to interact as much with drivers if we defined space for them.
Most bike lanes don't fix intersections, which is where my biggest beef with most cyclists in my area is.
I drive about once day a week and bike five days. I get to be on both sides, and gosh darn do I hate both groups. I hate a few drivers in all areas, and most cyclists at intersections. (t's a daily thing to see cyclists fly through an all-stop intersection when there's someone at the cross first. It's a weekly thing to see a car driving the wrong way down a one-way road.
That said, it's the drivers that are going to kill me. (Leading cause of death for Americans under the age of 26: the human driver.)
You're right that bike lanes don't fix intersections, and much of the problem stems from the New World-style grid city layout. Roundabouts are much safer for cyclists, although not a panacea of course. It's also a chicken and egg problem: right now there are enough cyclists in 'cycle-unfriendly' cities so to say to be dangerous, but not enough to find safety in numbers. Inner cities in much of Europe are cycle-friendly because there are so many cyclists that they interact with other agents in the transport system as swarms more than as individuals. This makes the reactions from other agents very different.
Seeing the number of other cyclists that just blow through lights and stop signs, I'm pretty sure that the majority of them must not even know that they're supposed to stop.
There are a few bike specific lights on my route to work and the number of cyclists that stop at these intersections is astronomically higher than at other, equally busy intersections.
>Seeing the number of other cyclists that just blow through lights and stop signs, I'm pretty sure that the majority of them must not even know that they're supposed to stop.
As a biker, I think we need to educate others on this. If we bikers want respect, we need to be willing to share the road sensibly. I have a bit of strong feelings towards drivers, but I also disdain bikers who don't follow the rules and just make it harder for the rest of us to garner the respect we badly need on the road.
Do schools I the US teach children how to safely ride a bike? When I went to primary school in Germany we had a cop cone by several times and we went to a parking lot that had fake roads painted on it and he taught us about traffic rules and we ride bikes around the lot while he gave us feedback. We learned about right of way, arm signals etc.
Another good idea (seen in the Netherlands) is to give red lights a countdown [0]. In my limited, anecdotal experience, people are more willing to wait when it's clear how long it'll take. Of course, this should be done in combination with bike-specific traffic lights, of which i am an advocate.
Adblock was recently sold to an undisclosed buyer[1]. They told users of the switch the same day they started the "Acceptable Ads" program. I don't want someone I don't know controlling which ads bypass my ad blocker..
To be precise, you don't want someone whose interests oppose your own controlling the ads. I don't use ABP, but paid "acceptable" ads make them a straightforward protection racket, beholden to advertisers who can pay. Google and the other big players can buy them off for pocket change, so they're useless.
> Google and the other big players can buy them off for pocket change, so they're useless.
Why do people post this nonsense. Their use is to block intrusive ads. They are very clear about it and every argument against this has been incredibly misleading.
Whether payment is required or not isn't even clear, because it is mentioned only as a potential.
Like many others, I use an ad blocker at least as much to protect privacy as to reduce annoyances and malware. ABP's criteria for "acceptable" say nothing about tracking, so while they're a step in the right direction, they're mostly irrelevant to me.
The obvious conflict of interest from making payments even optional for advertisers makes them clearly untrustworthy.
Trouble is, without strict moderation the stuff that floats to the top will be the memes / jokes / lowest common denominator echo chamber opinions, not to mention the people trying to game the system. Look at most of the default subreddits, for example.
Not sure whether you comment above is directed at Youtube only, but Amazon does have "Was this review helpful to you?". I believe voting on Yes makes it more prominent. As usual, this kind of system is subject to fan-boy treatment. I once left a 1 star review of a game which I genuinely disliked and gave my reasons (involved tinkering around graphics settings in XML files); there were a lot of clicks on the "No" button to the above question, presumably because the fan-boys could not tolerate someone criticizing their favourite game.
