Yes, and it may be a good idea to have it just in case. But the courts in the US so far mostly ruled that police forcing you to give biometrics to unlock is fine, as it is the same as fingerprinting you when you are arrested. But forcing you to give pin/password is the same as testifying against yourself, which is against the 5th amendment. So they usually can’t make you to give them a pin/password. At least in theory. Still better to have it in practice.

For GrapheneOS (custom android), there is Lockdown button next to power off and restart which does the same thing. I think it may be on other Android phones as well but not sure.

Your desperate reply is so predictable I added the quote where you use the specific word “argument” to my comment before you even posted your reply 🤣

So what is your argument?

The whole discussion is about how MIT-style licensing is not as effective for software freedom as GPL licenses.

There is no argument, dear child.

🤣

P.S: you are still talking about “other people”. Can you try to make any value judgement and own it? How about “I don’t care about software freedom and prefer to get free stuff”?

Why? Because your argument has failed beyond redemption so you need something else to impotently insult?

Which is completely besides the point of the post

🤡

The whole discussion is about how MIT-style licensing is not as effective for software freedom as GPL licenses.

No one else is arguing about that here you 🤡 That’s just your straw-man.

deleted by creator

I did not write 90% of the things you claim I did. Go make starw-man arguments somewhere else.

Sad. In a way, it is amazing that The Sims 3 is 15 years old now and still, no game is able to match it.

leadership thinks that it is a better

You seem to be having some comprehension issue, that is not what I wrote.

I disagree. Sure, for some larger crucial projects, companies would pay. But for the majority of (small) projects, we would just handwrite an inferior solution from scratch rather than handle the bureaucracy. The result would be wasted additional effort, inferior features and more bugs.

And even if that was not the case and bureaucracy was not an issue, the question is how much better would the paid for “professional” FOSS software be compared to the free one. If it was so much better, that it justified the price, it would outcompete the free one anyway. And if it is not, then by definition it is better we use the free one.

The “problem” is that those contributions can be taken and exploited by large corporations.

You say exploited, I say used. Or on the other hand, you can argue that large FOSS projects like Linux distros are exploiting smaller projects they package, since they don’t share their donations…

IMO there is no issue if the wishes of the author are respected. The authors wishing for companies to use their code is just as valid as wishing to restrict it to FOSS.

I did not write anything even in the neighborhood of that. Go learn how to read with understanding.

you are working for freedom.

Which is still working for free.

If you use MIT, you make products (paid or foss) better for everyone, in a sense making the world better.

If you use GPL, you push FOSS to be more prevalent, arguably making the world better in a different way.

What I don’t like is that the title minimizes the contributions of the MIT developers.

Great. No corporation is working on software for the freedom of its users

A lot of people don’t care.

Or pay the developer to dual license, which can and should be the preferred way for FOSS developers to fund their work?

Not everyone wants to deal with that (setting up payment methods, filling tax forms, …)

In addition, as a developer for a corp, I can tell you having to pay for a license would prevent me from using most smaller libraries because the process of getting it approved and paid is too difficult, even if the money is not an issue.

Two reasons:

1. public domain is not very well legally recognized, so code licensed under MIT is easier to use internationally than code in public domain.
2. MIT includes disclaimer of liability, which as an author you want just to be safe.

Please be trolling or bot. How could a sentient being write something this nonsensical…

I agree, but on the other hand 12 years? This sounds more like a 12 days crime…

Then you factor in Germany and Japan going fully back to nuclear and rising demand for energy and realize you’re off by a factor of 20. Let’s be very conservative and say it’s a factor of 10. Since you either didn’t get that or tried to bury it in BS again:

What in the flying fuck are you talking about now. I was criticizing Germany taking offline already existing reactors, not saying to replace renewables with nuclear.

Your argument fell apart, can’t be always right. Move on. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Straw man again, really?

Right, comparing safety to the other source that is currently available is straw man, just like bringing up how many lives seatbelts save when discussing seatbelt safety. Cope much.

Sure because that one just ripped an iceberg-shaped hole into your HMS Nuclear Titanic. But keep on shilling.

Now who is strawmaning. Sure, 230 years is such a short time, that nuclear can’t even be a transitional source. Also, it is absolutely impossible that nuclear fusion, fuel reprocessing or thorium reactors would be developed to a usable state in such a short time.

Since you seem to have run out of actual safety related arguments other than calling research papers low quality while every source you provided was a wikipedia article, I am done here.

Go an be a fossil fuel shill without even realizing it.

Or do you realize it? Were you speaking from experience before? Have happy fossil fuel bosses of your own?