None actually happened, and they just wanted to track which features were actually used to be able to see how/where to focus their efforts in audacity.

It just joined the musescore project, great open source music notation software. For funding the only commercial thing they offer is a site where you can upload & download scores, with the paying part also paying licensining fees for copyrighted music. Imo all looks very legit. I was already familiar with musescore before this drama, and watched some of tantacrul (head of the musescore project, and now also audacity i guess). He’s a very down to earth guy that has quite some insightful videos on the musescore development and figuring out what to keep/remove when going for new versions. But also great videos regarding other topics.

So far i’ve seen nothing that rings any alarm bells. The open source community can sometimes be a bit too sensitive regarding paid services linked to open source software. But in this case as long as the actual software remains open source, and the paid part actually adds value (a nice place to exchange sheet music, without any copyright issues as that’s covered by your payment, so a very legit reason to ask money), why not?

No it doesn’t?

I just googled it to be sure, but i already assumed you meant ‘spyware’ (which is something completely different), referring to the telemetry (which i can get is a sensitive thing, but anonymous usage statistics to know where to focus their development sounds like a decent idea, and afaik they implemented it with respect for the user)

But is that the fault of XML, or is the data itself just complex, or did they structure the data badly?

Would another human readable format make the data easier to read?

There are people who find XML hard to read?

Yeah, try that one in court. No your honor, i didn’t pay for the murder, i paid for someone who paid for someone to commit the murder. I’m obviously innocent!

It’s a plain stupid argument to try and make, and it makes no sense. And i’m not even vegan, i just recognize that yes, a part of the money i pay for meat goes to who kills it, so i pay for someone to kill animals for me so i can eat them. That’s how the world works, and denying that is just ridiculous.

What do you mean by forcing being the wrong word? Do you give the cat a bowl of meat and a bowl of vegan alternative for a month, and then see what the cat chooses? That would not be forcing imo. But i doubt that’s happening anywhere.

Ok, i get it, it’s fun to hate on the vegan, but he’s right and you’re not.

If you buy meat somewhere part of the price is you paying for the person that killed it. That’s obvious right?

Of course in relation to the cat, even if there’s a healthy vegan diet possible, he’s wrong imo. Why force our choices onto pets?

Let’s just say you’re right, it’s perfectly possible and healthy for the cat.

Does that make it ethical to force a carnivorous hunter animal on a vegan diet? Are you going to force it to stay inside to limit the possibility for it to catch mice & birds just to be sure?

Just beyond the physical possibility, how ethical is it to force our choices onto our pets?

GP specifically talked about the first version of PHP, sounds like it was just a dummy implementation as they were working on PHP, that then later got replaced with a proper implementation :)