- Have all software devs magically realize their build scripts can be hard to read too and they shouldn't hack or overdo them without documentation - Have all build scripts magically be able to warn a dev when a link dies or a project vanishes (or back it up automatically) - Have libraries/programs magically all start being backwards compatible unless there's a very strong reason not to (e.g., security issues) - Have all software magically clearly indicate where every file it needs is, even if the author forgot to make a specific error message - Have hiring managers evaluate candidates on skill instead of bullet points - Prefer to train managers from inside rather than hiring them in - A cross platform C/C++ GUI library that can compete with Winforms on C# and is easy to set up - Have all software magically detect everything that it needs to make it work and spit out an easy to follow report (even for non-devs) saying exactly what you need to install and where so that anyone can set up their PC like that. Including things that the dev already had set up without noticing. - Have the industry be one that learns from itself rather than saying "this time is different, we're going to start over without the legacy cruft" and then smashing headfirst into the same mistakes solved years ago. - Have every interface that takes something that already exists and rearranges / presents it in a different form (e.g., OOP layer over procedural API) clearly indicate what the abstraction is and what problems it solves / makes easier in the old API

I understand, thanks for the response!

Yes, it would be nice to have an official response. As you might imagine it's quite a huge risk to leave this sort of thing up to chance. I hope the SE post is incorrect. Maybe adding something to the license like the DUMB decoder did might help reassure people that CPOL can mix with GNU GPL, if it wasn't CPOL's intent to add breaking clauses: dumb/LICENSE at 396caa4d31859045ccb5ef943fd430ca4026cce8 · kode54/dumb · GitHub[^] Sadly there's not much room for "creativity" when it comes to compatibility with viral licenses. I can't afford the lawyers and I wouldn't know one who could answer this anyway (no precedent anywhere).

Just FYI, from what I read it seems like CPOL isn't compatible with GNU GPL: - So if you have a GNU GPL dependency it might be illegal to use a CPOL license on your project, - and it might be illegal for anyone who uses a (viral) GNU GPL dependency to use your work under a CPOL license. license compatibility - Can I use CodeProject code in a GPL project? - Open Source Stack Exchange[^]

Quote:

CPOL is not an open source license according to the OSI definition. It has a clause which does not allow it to be used for any purpose as mandated by the GPL or MIT license:

Quote:

You agree not to use the Work for illegal, immoral or improper purposes, or on pages containing illegal, immoral or improper material.

If that's true it makes CPOL more restrictive than BSD, can anybody weigh in on this? Was this intentional?

For something very different, try VHS Head: Methlab Mix, Trademark Ribbons of Gold, or Persistence of Vision. It uh... "stimulates creative thought" as a colleague once told me when I showed it to him. I use VLC. Occasionally I use youtube.