Also, this anti-trust bullshit is bullshit. Call Google whatever you want in the media and.... let consumers decide. They know Yahoo and Bing exist. They know others exist as well.
If you consider source of funding to be an automatic bias and cause for disqualification, then we can just fire all the climate scientists right now.
Sound good?
Sure, as long as you use some GPL code the requirements apply to the work as a whole. But if you write part A using the GPL license, I can write part B using the BSD license. The GPL license is okay with A+B and if someone wants to use part B in a non-GPL project or replace part A with differently licensed code they can. The point was he doesn't have to use the GPL unless he wants to. He can use a far more permissive "I don't care, use it wherever you want" license for his bits.
The FSF post didn't say either what terms of the license they thought Apple was violating, nor why they think distributing via the app store is any different than distributing via the post office.
The way copyright law defines distribution it essentially means transmit, like over radio and TV or down a wire. There's a very limited exception carved out for passing along transitory copies unaltered so each node on the Internet isn't liable for everything passing through just the source and potentially the sink. Moving a copy physically around never invokes copyright, which is why Apple is on the hook and the post office not. And Apple's software storing it on the user device leads to vicarious and contributory liability if they violate the reproduction right, since they're both materially contributing and profiting from it.
This is pretty much straight up copyright law, not the FSFs opinion. I haven't read up on exactly what beef they have with the app store's terms, but Apple's activity very clearly falls under copyright law.
Similar statements could be made for desktops, where tray icon pop-ups for updates, email and chat notifications distract and interrupt workflows.
Maybe both for desktops and cars, this problem can be solved by detecting whether the user is currently focussed (on the road or a task) or relaxed/idle, and may be interrupted. Mylyn is a very impressive demo of thinking in this direction, I would like to see more of it.
Oh, how
Well even if we change the medium there'll still be a desire for professionally made content, no offence to YouTube ads but it's not likely to produce Game of Thrones or The Hobbit any time soon. That you're stuck with what your cable provider gives you is going the way of AOL though, everyone can use Spotify and once the bandwidth is sufficient you can get all your TV from anywhere too. The only reason we don't have streaming BluRay quality is will, better to pretend 5 Mbit is enough for HD. Oddly enough Netflix recommends 25 mbit for UHD, 5x the bandwidth for 4x the pixels, despite the audio track being the same. But the way things are going with fiber eventually that'll be like 128kbps vs 256kbps AAC, it's not significant.
In my perception jQuery has basically become the JavaScript standard library.
Basically any combination of frontend toolkits has it included somewhere, so you don't even have to worry about doing that. It's the default for Joomla and Wordpress and there are a measurable amount of functions that take care of the gruntwork and normalize utility across browsers.
On top of that, the amount of JS projects relying on jQuery as a foundation is staggering. The secondary market has tools built around the jQuery ecosystem and the project as a whole does an excellent job at marketing and advocating.
I personally see the next generation in such avantgarde stuff as Googles Polymer (pretty amazing) but until everyone has moved to SPAs and web components - which is not happening any time soon - but until then it's not the worst idea to familiarize yourself with the concepts and the utility funcitons of jQuery.
My 2 cents.
I think Google has a really compelling argument that using the Java APIs in what has become the world's dominant personal computing platform's primary development toolset has increased the value of the Java APIs.
Unfortunately, that's not really how that swings. If you make for example a movie adaptation of a book it might drive book sales, but your use is primarily a replacement for a commercial opportunity to sell the movie rights. Sun/Oracle was selling Java ME licenses, Android was pretty clearly created to avoid those license terms. If we first assume the API is copyrighted, that does not seem like a typical fair use. The purpose is not interoperability with Java, it's to substitute it so the character of use is also against it and clearly they replicate a substantial amount of the API. The only factor that really speaks in favor of fair use is the nature of the work, which is purely descriptive and necessary to achieve the same functional operation.
Part of me want to agree a little bit with Oracle though, clearly designing an API is a creative effort. It's not merely stating a bunch of facts where somebody else designing an API would have to come up with something very, very similar. But the whole purpose of an API is to have a standardized way to interact with it, like being able to copyright where the brake pedal goes so nobody else can put it in the same spot and have it work in the same way. Like, I can't really think of a non-fair way to use an API which is why it shouldn't be copyrighted in the first place.
Lots of things can be considered an API. For instance, who owns the copyright on OpenGL? Does anyone even know? What about HTTP? After all, a protocol is basically an API that runs over wires instead of call stacks. And HTTP/2.0 is a derivative work of SPDY which is
You forget the next Bill Gates (if he wants to be) after this ruling: Tim Berners-Lee. Any use of the HTTP protocol from 1991 to date is clearly derivative of the HTTP 1.0 protocol and since he owns the copyright which is life+70 he now can sue every website in existence for royalties.
Ah, I see. I think I have erased from my memory the time when my daily commute was measured in hours -- I could only stand it for a few years early in my career and then gave up and moved to a job closer to home. I do sympathise, though.
How dare they possibly charge you in the future for a service they are providing that you make the choice whether to use or not!
They're welcome to try. I don't mind. But as EFF explains, it's much BETTER to run your own WiFi hotspot as a public service. I'm already paying for the bandwidth, so who cares?
It's part of the battle which will decide whether we will be a friendly, cooperative society or permanent slaves to corporations.
Make your own choice. I already have, and I don't really give a damn which way you go.
Only the first few times. Then it's just annoying.
Well you know they're not going to give up the ad revenue for free and how many people already complain it's too expensive? I don't exactly feel the market vibe would be positive. That said, online services aren't stuck with one service tier. They could offer some form of "first class" service, bump the price out of the "premium" class and offer simultaneous or near-cinema exclusives - preferably less insane than Prima Cinema ($35000 + $500/rental), like upper middle class not 1%ers. Of course cinemas would be blatantly opposed to the idea, they refuse to show anything also being aired.
If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.
