All, except the nice bits...

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets...

Are you joking?

If I have an IPv6 only internal network (not really exotic) I shouldn't be required to set up an IPv4 nameserver and DHCP server etc.etc. just for android.

Also your examples of NETBIOS and IPX are backwards. This is more like having to use a NETBIOS server in order to use IPv4... which would be equally stupid to having to use an IPv4 server in order to use IPv6.

I wonder if Android can at least do IPv6 correctly now. At the moment you can only use IPv6 in combination with an IPv4 DNS server (which has to be assgined using DHCP (IPv4). (RDNSS value from IPv6 is not used and you can't even specify IPv6 namservers manually for WiFi, thus a pure IPv6 environment is not possible)

Yeah, appeared while I was complaining. You win this round, Mozilla!

Another release, another time when their own FTP server is the LAST place to get the release.

Last time it took around a week until the Android version (30) was available here, where previously that was the first place to find it.

What's next, changelog on twitter only?

Was it made of molten boron?

Nobody doesn't like molten boron.

Are you the timecube guy?

Why do they release Firefox 30 for Android in the Play Store BEFORE it is even on their own FTP server

Life exists outside of Google, you know...

That is strange, for me the only permissions it requires are vibration and dictionary access.
Where did you check the permissions?
Go to Settings -> Apps - > Multiling O Keyboard then scroll down to see the permissions. (Those are the ones that the app requests, not the ones it shows at App ops)
Maybe the App ops is showing something that it wouldn't have access anyways..

I am using multiling keyboard which allows swype input and doesn't even need network permission nor anything else than the user dictionary. https://play.google.com/store/...

Using an iPhone? At least I can already detect bad taste...

You're one of today's lucky 10000: http://xkcd.com/1053/

If you have your own webserver, try this: http://www.fourteenminutes.com/code/avantslash/

Really, it seems they removed the only killer feature that Firefox had before, the way you could switch tabs.

Before, it was move to the right then select one of the big tabs on the left. Now I have to tap into some small corner to show the tabs? Really? I think I just stay with the built in (ICS/CM9) browser which basically works exactly like that and also hides the navigation bar once the page is loaded

"Normally" people don't write code at all.

Yeah, also "normally" people don't invest millions in code without checking the basic license of the code that they "steal". I would say when we ARE talking about the context of code dependencies we could limit the term "normally" to relate to the aforementioned context, wouldn't you agree?

No, because "attribution" is an absolutely trivial requirement.

So we are talking about a sliding scale of difficulty to resolve the issue that code was taken without proper permission. What about if you are a small startup that is making a competing product to let's say Microsoft or Apple. That company invested millions in dollars into some software that just copy+pasted Microsoft's or Apple's code. Do you really think they would be easier negotiate with or more likely just say flat out "NO".

The only takeaway I got from this thread appears to be that you more or less just don't want me to SAY IT out loud.

And all I can take away from this discussion is somebody whining about how companies have to adhere to the license terms. Guess what champ, they also have to do this with any other license.

Again, your orignal statement about having to release the sourcecode is FUD. A company that does invest millions into something illegal (steal code) just did a bad investment. "Resolving" the issue might require money, maybe millions, maybe more than you invested, maybe it's not psosible at all, depending on the person holding the copyright .

Your argument was that with enough money you can make the problem go away. This is only true if the code owner agrees which is not guaranteed.

As far as I can tell, you can't argue with my original statement, and do understand and agree that open source projects with "onerous" copyleft licenses are a big problem for companies. The only takeaway I got from this thread appears to be that you more or less just don't want me to SAY IT out loud.

BZZZZZZ. WRONG. I agree that the "money throwing" resolution is more difficult depending on the NUMBER OF CODE OWNERS. Which again does have nothing to do with the license. If some code with a proprietary license has 5000 code contributors you have EXACTLY the same problem, on the other hand you then don't even have the potential solution of releasing your code. THIS is the thing I don't want people to LIE about. Saying that you have to release your code is a flat out lie and I don't care what you personally think but I don't want other people to become misinformed due to people like you running around spreading FUD about licensing terms.