Digging through that PDF, all I see are discussions about trying to cooperate with Sun to use Java, and it not working out. Which backs up Google's explanation of WHY they didn't go with J2ME.

So, again, got a link to e-mails where someone at Google says "What we're about to do is illegal."?

Haven't seen those e-mails... Got a link?

Actually they are trying to use the email to show that Google were knowingly breaching the license, not that google knew ahead of time that they were in the wrong.

I don't think I understand the subtle difference in what I said and what you said... So let me try to be clear by pretending to know what I'm talking about for a second: Oracle is trying to use the e-mail to show evidence of WILLFUL INFRINGEMENT.

And it could be evidence of that, except: 1) it was written after Oracle started threatening, 2) it was written AFTER Sun's CEO publicly congratulated Google on releasing Android and promised Sun would support the Android platform 3) it was written by someone in Google not working on Android 4) it was saved as a draft but not sent.

Oracle are dicks, but that is only a mild improvement on the twats that are google.

Are you trying to say Oracle is less evil than Google? Are you at all familiar with Oracle?

Honestly even if Google is in the wrong here (which I strongly disagree with), I think it's vitally important Oracle lose this case, as the legal theory they are trying to push (that public APIs are subject to copyright and licensing) is absolute INSANITY and would be the death knell to a large percentage of the software industry.

Though it would make developing on proprietary systems significantly more painful than Free/Open systems like Linux, so that would make some people around here very happy...

No matter what he meant, it shouldn't matter. Oracle is trying to use the e-mail to prove "Google knew ahead of time they were in the wrong!" when in fact this e-mail was written AFTER Oracle bought Sun and was murmuring about lawsuits. It's also an unsent draft of an e-mail written by a Google employee who wasn't working on Android! Wow!

I guess if I want to screw over my company in the future, I know how to do it now... Incriminating e-mail drafts!

Except that a customer like me won't see any difference on his bill for buying the phone, as (barring unemployment or death) I will have a wireless plan for the next two years anyway, whether I keep my MB300 or not.

Yes, and auto-loans don't provide you anything in addition to the car.

I'm going to have (and pay for) wireless service for the next two years, whether or not AT&T gives me a new phone.

That's your mistake right there. First, your mis-characterization of Stallman's attitude does not reflect the spirit, and the very practical effect, of the GPL, at all.

I never mentioned the GPL in my post. I said his ideology. The GPL is a (very good) product of Stallman's ideology, but his ideology is much larger than the GPL. And it very much is an ideology that refuses to compromise and refuses to work with others who do not agree with the ideology. There's nothing wrong with that, it just prevents a person from successfully leading a project like Linux.

And second, Stallman's role and influence is not one of a leader of project like Linux.

And that's what I said, as well, but when the GP said:

... but his ideology would have prevented the operating system's success and effected the ecosystem that grew around Linux.

I assume that's also what they meant, that Stallman could create the GPL and champion the cause of free software, but he could not successfully be in charge of Linux. And you said they were wrong, which led to me saying you were wrong... So who exactly is wrong here? :)

You say one thing and its opposite in the same sentence.

He says the truth. Stallman's "You're either with us, or against us." ideology would be completely toxic in a leader of a project like Linux.

Linus didn't set out to spread a philosophy, he set out to make something useful. He found a particular philosophy useful in the creation of this thing. Stallman is out to spread a religion.

Note that I say this with no intention to imply anything Stallman says or believes is wrong.

They're literally giving the phones away until April 20th. $100 rebate due to a memory management defect if you buy by the 20th... The phone is $100 w/ contract. Or, it's $50 w/ contract on Amazon, meaning they're willing to pay people to buy them.

I don't see how paying people to use your product isn't the most extreme form of advertising possible. Maybe the problem isn't the advertising? Maybe the problem is no one wants a Windows phone?

Okay, fair enough, you never specifically used the name BP in your comment, so I may have mischaracterized your comment as supporting the GP's "BP are the only guys responsible!!!" message.