If you make a sexist joke (or repost one) and then investigate anyone for sexual harassment then your impartiality will be questioned.

Tautologies aside, any comments, made in jest or otherwise, which might suggest a specific and relevant prejudice are sufficient grounds on which to question someone's impartiality.

Sorry for all the italics, but the specifics are pretty important here.

If you post such jokes on your blog shortly before going on to judge or investigate priests, you can expect your impartiality to be questioned.

She didn't volunteer any information. The agent leading the investigation found out about her past activism and then trumped up a reason to get rid of a lesbian with liberal political leanings, something he apparently found distasteful. He even has a blog in which he reposts comics advocating violence against atheists.

True, but the GPL certainly does prohibit you from distributing the combination. That is why the Linux kernel uses GPL shims for binary driver blobs which are themselves distributed separately.

It's right, but not quite complete. Mojang is now the developer of CraftBukkit and Bukkit. So one of the previous Bukkit developers is asserting their copyright to try and prevent Mojang (or anyone) from distributing the infringing CraftBukkit mod.

Again, the parent is also missing the important point that any individual person is still perfectly within their rights if they personally compile and use CraftBukkit. Only distribution of the GPL/incompatible combo code/binaries is prohibited.

I guess you missed that Mojang is now the owner/distributor of both Bukkit and CraftBukkit? Of course they don't hold copyright for all of the various previous commits to Bukkit. So, indeed as you say, one of the Bukkit developers is asserting copyright to prevent Mojang from using Bukkit in CraftBukkit while the "Craft" part of that is incompatibly licensed.

False. As an accurate AC stated above:

The AC is accurate; your comment isn't.

Or, as in this case, if your GPL code links code or (binary blobs, see Linux kernel) available only under incompatible licenses, then you need to use a GPL shim and distribute the non-GPL part separately. It's actually the GPL project which is non-compliant here.

It's decompiled. Java is actually pretty easy to decompile well, for example here is a good decompiler which I sometimes use. Even has IDE plugins...

Makes sense. I made my parent comment based on the experiences of people I know, who have specifically turned down painkillers in favor of self-medication with marijuana. For most of them, I don't think they ever got far enough to find out if habituation would change their choice.

I think a lot of people replace opiates with marijuana despite inferior pain relief because it's a helluva lot easier to function in a more-or-less normal way on pot than, say, percocet or whatever.

You must not know any police officers.

The claim in this subthread is that the combined work becomes a GPL work. That is not the case; it becomes infringing. There are then multiple remedies which could be pursued, as discussed extensively above.

Sorry, to clarify, it's 512 thousand routes worth of space, not 512 kilobytes.