That doesn’t really have the same rigidity. There would be no guarantee for others that it would remain available to them as long as they adhere to those principles.

Said another way, a bad faith actor could create a patent and make it available to FOS developers, but then turn around and sell that patent to someone who will charge those same developers.

I suppose you could have a third legally binding document that stipulates the terms of use, but kinda wish it was just handled under the patent.

Might be a stupid question, but I’d there a GNU license equivalent to patents? Could you patent something that could be used for free, but not used by a company in a for-profit matter?

I mean, even with a union, if a company crumbles the laborers are out of a job.

Captain, we’re going to need a new tactic. Operative 15 has found a gaping flaw in our capabilities.

Always warms my heart to see the amount of respect these athletes have for their competitors. Sometimes people are awesome!

Thanks for keeping us on topic, Chief. We almost stopped thinking about sex for a min.

It’s a monarchy… So yeah…

Cat probability: 98.3%

deleted by creator

Is this the same Bob Ballard that found the Titanic and the Bismark?

I agree, we all have search engines and if someone doesn’t understand a word or phrase they can learn it on their own. Brilliant write up!

Was this the root cause??? Hahahaha

It will be very difficult for someone over the internet to help you troubleshoot without some type of schematic of what you’re trying to accomplish.

Love your optimism

You’re right. I was being very Ameri-centric. I subconsciously interchange free speech and the first amendment even though they are not equal.

I do believe that individuals and private institutions should have this right to react though. I don’t agree with how it was used in this situation, but I absolutely believe the hospital should have the right to terminate someone based on the opinions they openly share.

If this same employee was sharing an anti-vax opinion I would want the hospital to be able to remove them from the role.

That is not what free speech means.

Free speech means the government cannot prohibit free speech. A private institution can take any lawful action they want in retaliation/reaction.

I agree that it really sucks that saying something true can get you fired, but this isn’t an infringement of the first amendment.

It is a politically savvy and ethically correct move. Really nice when those line up.

The argument I’m making is that we should not call them chemicals when they don’t have the capacity to make chemical reactions.

An analogy could be how we use the word weed. We call unwanted plants weeds. If there is mint growing in your yard and you don’t want it, it’s a weed. If you sell your house and the next owner likes it that mint is not a weed anymore. It’s still mint (element) but no longer a weed (chemical).

You make a good point. I should have said “things in the plasma state” should not be considered chemicals.

Hydrogen and Helium are elements, I guess it depends on what your definition of a chemical is.

The reason I’m saying plasma is not a chemical is because it is too energetic to make atom to atom bonds which I feel is the basis for chemistry. If something cannot interact chemically I feel we should not consider it a chemical.

Please note that I did not look up any formal definitions, just expressing my reasoning for my argument. (Aka I’m probably wrong).