The GPL goes beyond just the source code. There are clauses that prevent further restrictions on the licensed use of a program, there are licence grants that allow you to redistribute the binary form of the program (what was downloaded from the app store). You will not be able to do these things, the app store terms of use are going to have further restrictions on acceptable use of a program downloaded from the app store. GPL will be incompatible with the terms of the app store.

The GPL doesn't propagate as long as you don't distribute the program. It doesn't have anything to do with using it like proprietary software. If somebody can download your program, you have to honor the GPL.

It isn't the source code redistribution or availability that is the problem with GPL on an app store.

The app stores do not allow you to copy and distribute the Program in executable form, since they are wrapped up in DRM layers and I would bet there are also license verbiage that says you are not allowed to copy the apps downloaded from the app store. It is very easy to provide the distribution of source code for an app on the app store, you just point to a file on the internet, a phone number to call or an address to write to asking for the source.

No, collision vulnerabilities are for validating the contents of a file haven't changed using an MD5 hash. The reason you don't use MD5 hashing to store a 1-way hash of a password is that it is an extremely fast algorithm to compute - meaning it takes a lot less time to compute a rainbow table or brute force hashes in order to figure out the password.

No, didn't you see hackers, it obviously is 'GOD'.

Anybody who might be a party to a lawsuit regarding the publishing of the key should download that screenshot RIGHT NOW and keep track of it in case of a lawsuit. Make sure your lawyer knows about its existence.

You sir are very funny. Of course the GP was pretty much just asking to be rick rolled.

A hot programmer

Now there is a fallacy...

Anything worth keeping is also worth fighting for. The problem is that a large number of people do not actually do anything to protect the things they value. If you want to see a world without patent abuse, you have to actively engage - donate to the EFF, call your Congressman/woman, educate people on the issues, buy some advertisements, etc, etc.

I would rather have an open codec used for the open web. I did find this move by Google to be a little odd, I am wondering if MPEG-LA called Google up and asked for money.

they will outlaw neither only because Shakespeare's work is out of copyright, it's in the public domain. Now if we were to talk about Mickey Mouse, that would be a different story...

I would totally be beating the libertarian drum too if the ISP "market" was a free market. Free markets work when there are actually free markets - problem is that a monopoly/duopoly isn't a free market. It is a sad day that we lost a lot of net neutrality supporters with the recent elections.

Being unable to use HTML5 for enterprise applications only applies to those enterprises that are using Microsoft Windows without alternative browsers...

I don't know about you, but my online banking website doesn't look, act or feel like a book or magazine. There is a definite difference between a content web site and a web application.

I personally don't have an issue with requiring accessibility for most sites (as long as you can provide an accessible alternative to your content or web app) - the tools they do use need to be updated more often. Some of the screen readers require IE6.

Awesome!! A Certain Scientific Railgun - Long Live Anime!!