For anyone who doesn’t get this comment https://youtu.be/Q-25c8Rsobw

Great comparison, a dialect used by millions of people to a dead language. It really shows how much you care about the people who speak that dialect…

I’m not saying that’s good, but I feel like I’ve seen far worse. Like the ones that are just a pad of cement and a pole with a bus sign. There might be nearby businesses to indicate where people could go when they use the bus, maybe a desire path, but no actual pedestrian infrastructure.

Nice try FBI!

As opposed to now, where I have to do a double take whenever I see a modern single cab. AFAIK, they are now special order and some models don’t even offer them.

Indeed, but as I’ve been saying in other comments, that doesn’t mean the license will be FOSS. The press release is vague, and I think that’s likely to be intentional ambiguity.

Note that it speaks of the “official version” in the next sentence, which seems to me like there will be inofficial versions which requires a more permissive license

It doesn’t necessarily require a permissive license. For example, Winamp could be willing to license the code for non-official versions or for integration into other projects, but at a fee and with limitations set by Winamp. As I’ve said in other comments, the press release is vague, and I think that’s likely to be intentional ambiguity.

The article’s text said, “Winamp will remain the owner of the software.” That does not, in fact, preclude giving it a FOSS license, nor does retaining a related trademark. GP was correct. They can make it FOSS and keep the trademark and copyright. I don’t see any reason to think it unlikely.

It’s possible. However, at no point in the post is that discussed, so it’s pretty wild speculation.

Forking someone’s copyrighted work does not change ownership of the rights in any jurisdiction that I know of. If you meant “ownership” in a difference sense, like maybe control over a derivative project’s direction, then I think choosing a different word would have made your meaning more clear.

AFAIK, it doesn’t “change” ownership, but it creates a new property with new ownership. That new ownership may be bound by he terms of the original license, but the original owner has no further control.

The open-source licenses that I’ve used don’t require surrendering copyright.

The creator doesn’t “surrender” their copyright, but someone can fork it and then have ownership of their version. “Winamp will remain the owner of the software” indicates you won’t have ownership of a fork.

Again, it doesn’t clearly state whether it will be “FOSS” or “Source Available”, but if they were planning to go FOSS, you’d expect them to say something to make that clear. Leaving it vague seems like a strategy to get attention while not actually lying.

It also doesn’t include any wording that would indicate it’s FOSS. It doesn’t say anything about being able to fork, instead using phrases like, “participate in its development”, “allowing its users to contribute directly to improving the product”, and “will benefit from thousands of developers’ experience and creativity”.

Sure, but that’s unlikely, given the wording. “Owner of the software” is fairly clear and trademark and software are very different.

The release doesn’t say it’s going FOSS. It doesn’t specify, but it hints that it’ll be “Source Available”. Stuff like:

Winamp will remain the owner of the software and will decide on the innovations made in the official version.

What does this have to do with FOSS?

Just because the software is open source doesn’t means a product running it is going to be free. Heck, even some FOSS projects have financial contributors who get perks like software support, access to pre-released software, and input into feature development.

I’m not sure that applies here (Google Maps link to where the picture was taken). The issue is vehicles changing lanes to get on to the expressway. They’re often speeding up and just drift across the bike lane which makes this a really dangerous conflict point.

If I had to cross this overpass on bike, I think it might actually be safer to get on the sidewalk and cross the 2 driveways, then cross the on-ramp at ~90°.

That’s basically what I envisioned as the centre-running bike lanes. However, the issue is how to transition on-to and off the median. And if the centre-running bike lanes extend further than the overpass, how do people get to destinations along the road?

I found in the replies, there was a proposal for a walking (potentially cycling too) bridge just south of here, but that was rejected by the province.

A solution would be to have a STOP SIGN at the off-ramp to protect cyclists. It’s not ideal for motorists, but it’s a far safer option, and there’s more than enough distance coming off the highway to allow for it.

Sure, the yield sign could be turned into a Stop Sign (I honestly don’t know why it isn’t one now), but that’s not what’s in the picture, or where most of the conflicts happen. What’s pictured is the an on-ramp and most of the conflicts are drivers drifting across the bike lane to get on to the expressway.

Up until 3 years ago, I lived in KW. I agree this is insane and completely avoid biking on these lanes. However, whenever this picture pops up on social media, I always question what would have been a better option?

• Should they just not have put in bike lanes? They are useful on either side of the overpass.
• Should the bike lanes be centre running? They could run beside the LRT, but I know centre running bike lanes present a bunch of new problems.
• Something else?

Here’s the location on Google Maps, if anyone wants to poke around.

I would love to see dedicated bike infrastructure to cross the expressway, but I don’t see that happening in the short/medium-term. There aren’t any other nearby crossing, though the next one south of here is okay~ish.

I don’t think that’s a fair assessment, and I’m someone who’s pretty invested in both projects (I’ve been using Beeper for almost a year and I’m still wearing a Pebble).

“Thrift” doesn’t mean it’s a charity either, take for example Value Village. There are also a ton of “consignment stores” that are for profit businesses and will get real mad if you call them a thrift store.