Sounds like the article's discussing the way in which it's not screwed.

There are circumstances under which such rules can be waived.

I especially hope they wave them, because Tesla's almost certainly a net-benefit to California's environment anyway (by making the industry wake up to electric vehicles when traditional automakers seemed like they were intentionally failing).

(or maybe the lawyer will be happy - but the guy payhing the lawyer won't be)

Do you have an example of a good Contributor License Agreement that doesn't just sound like "do work for us and we'll pay you less than minimum wage"?

Wouldn't it be better to just stick to a mainstream F/OSS license; and he users agree to release their code under that license?

Does that suggest at least 4 countries with NSA-like taps into the data.

I like the Surface hardware.

The problem is Microsoft's habit of killing support and forced upgrades (remember IE6, Zune, Visual Basic, etc).

At least if they unlocked the bootloader, I could continue to run Ubuntu on it after Microsoft's whims make Windows stop working on it.

I'd happily buy one if it had an unlocked bootloader.

But as it is now, you're buying an expensive brick.

Sad? I'd say it's happy.

So many big companies locked themselves in to "microsoft IE-6 only solutions" - and open source advocates have long cautioned them against depending too much on a vendor that might yank support whenever management changes or quarterly profits dictate yanking support to encourage upgrades.

This will teach them a lesson they'll hopefully never forget; and look for cross platform solutions in the future.

Seems that would be redundant with the Department Of Homeland Security's Office of Cybersecurity and Communications: http://www.dhs.gov/office-cybe...

Or I guess it could also mean "the guy who made the comments was never permitted to know the details of how much access he had".

Not quite irrelevant.

Microsoft probably sells Skype data to some law enforcement and intel agencies but not to others.

If it replaced it, I could almost be OK with it.

The problem is that it didn't - so for half the stuff you have man pages (with pretty good see-also sections); and for the other half the stuff you have info pages; and suddently you have to do twice the work to find anything.

Better search technology could help that one.

I rather the distributions stay away from this -- or at most just passed whatever documentation they do add to the upstream projects.

IMHO the biggest *problem* now is that you often have to got to Red Hat's manuals, or to Arch's or Ubuntu's wiki, or to Gentoo's mailing list, etc. to find documentation to anything.

Seems like that means you have a half-dozen competing efforts that all are re-envengint the same documentation; and since many of those distros are commercial enterprises, are motivated not to share and to paywall off their investment. Ugh.

I think that's *half* of where the problem started.

The second half is when various Linux distros started writing their "own" documentation, rather than contributing back to the upstream projects.

Once documentation fragmented like that; every damn blogger started trying to make documentation "his" to preserve his own page-rank; and a bunch of commercial Question/Answer sites saw the business opportunity of trying to own the documentation for themselves.

Once all those were in place -- it seems most of the efforts moved away from contributing documentation back to the source projects, and moved towards commercializing and monitizing "answers" - which is only profitable when the documentation doesn't keep up.

Sad.