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.
You are as free to renegotiate with the authors whether they use GPL or any other license.
What you are talking about is not about the license but about having more that a single code owner which is a valid point but has nothing to do with the GPL.
The same thing could also be said about BSD (or any other license apart from the code being public domain). If you want to use the code without attribution, you will also have to renegotiate which might prove as difficult as renegotiating the Linux kernel license.
Additionally the example of the Linux kernel is intellectually dishonest.
Normally you don't create derivative works from the kernel but you use it to run your program, which does not make it a derivative work.
Wow, either you really don't understand the GPL at all, or you are a shill.
It's not a dogma, it's just basic copyright.
Without license (i.e. if you do not adhere to the GPL), the issue becomes just a copyright issue.
"With GPL'd code, this doesn't work. If it's a small, one-man project, you can try negotiating a license, and probably get one. But if that one-man is an RMS-esque extremist, or if it's the work of multiple people, too many to possibly track down... No amount of money is enough to allow you to keep your copyright on your own code, likely with many millions of dollars invested in it..."
You are NOT obliged to release YOUR code, you are ONLY required to stop using (replacing) the non-licensed code (i.e. the portions of GPL code that you incorporated into your project without having a valid license).
Please explain how you think this differs from having other unlicensed (not-GPL) code in your project.
I can't think how often I hear this stupid FUD.
The GPL can NOT force you to open your source, this is complete and utter Bullshit.
If you don't adhere to the terms of the GPL, you don't have a license to use the code, simple as that.
This means there is NO difference whether you use GPL code without adhering to the terms or whether you use someone else's proprietary code.
In both cases you are liable for damages. In one case you have the ADDITIONAL possibility to get compliant by releasing your source as GPL. But you still can do the same thing as with proprietary code, i.e. replacing the code that you "stole" with your own code.
NEITHER does prevent you from being liable for damages by having used the code, it is just that most GPL developers don't sue for damages.
That is why you don't use rsync alone but something like rdiff-backup http://nongnu.org/rdiff-backup/
That way you have the current status as a 1:1 copy (like with rsync) but also have all previous backups as reverse diffs.
Well, lucky for you Budapest is currently not on CET but on CEST (daylight savings time)
Look at Germany. They build renewables like there is no tomorrow, and yet they need to open gas plants and coal plants, and import electricity from nuclear France.
As far as I know germany produces more energy than is used (it is a net exporter of energy), thus your insulting point becomes moot you "bloody hypocrite"
Rule #2: Build solitaire directly into clones of word and excel.
You mean like this?
And where's the MPEG-LA's patent indemnification to protect the chip makers from Google (or any other) patent suits? Oh, that's right. MPEG-LA has so far refused to do so. Good luck with that.