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.
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.
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.
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.
As someone who arranged the lease on a VW eGolf today, 100 or 200 miles is plenty. As a commuter vehicle that's all you need.
As a commuter vehicle, even the Renault Twizy would serve my purpose. The problem is that with depreciation, insurance, parking and all those other costs it's not worth having two cars and having to pick up a rental every time I do something outside the commuter box is hassle, though it'd probably make economic sense. My ICE car covers 100% of my needs, except when it's so far that I'm flying. Somehow the cost/benefit - or rather saving/benefit isn't very compelling.
Yes, companies that make one product do use products from competitors in some situations. Microsoft is a great example of this. Yes, they provide Windows, but you can also use Linux with Azure. There's nothing wrong with that. They're using a product that competes with Windows because that's what the Azure users want and need. It's the smart thing to do, for crying out loud.
Well, Windows doesn't run Linux applications but AMD CPUs do run the same software as Intel CPUs. That sort of thing matters. To use a car analogy, it's one thing to use a competitor's trucks because you don't make trucks even though they also have cars that compete with yours. It's another thing if your sales reps show up in a competitor's car. I'd wager the people at Samsung use Windows and Office, but I don't expect to see many Lumia phones. Last I heard AMD is still making desktop CPUs. Now they're making a desktop without their own desktop CPU. That's as clear a case of not eating your own dog food that you're going to get.
What's refreshing is that they've recognized this. I'm reasonably sure this choice was the output of some rather heated meetings
I guess nobody here at
In my experience, Linux desktop response suffers way more heavily under high disk load then Windows desktop response. Something with the way Gnome and KDE are prioritized in the kernel loop I would expect. Run something in the background that is chewing up the disk and expect windows to draw very slowly.
They're both pretty awful, I was updating a laptop I recently bought for travel (firesale before Win10, will update for free), 2GB to update on a 5400 rpm spinning rust disk. Oh. My. God. Fortunately it got 8GB of RAM, so most things run well once loaded into memory. I wanted some space for a media collection on the go, but boy will I miss an SSD as boot drive.
Well, in that respect what's the bandwidth between the user and the computer over the keyboard? If the primary purpose was communication and not implementation, you have a thousand tools for that which at best are equal to a meeting room with a whiteboard. They're trying to mash up the traditional system where you agree on what to build then go off to build it so that you're doing both at once all the time. To me it smells like jack of all trades, king of none where you need to deal with everything from high-level design to low-level implementation issues all the time. I guess it works if you have the right people, but then nearly every system works if you have the right people.
Okay, I didn't actually mean just typing but the headline was too short to explain. We have at least one, maybe two people in our group who actually produce fairly decent solutions but who are just s...l...o...w at ad hoc work. For example we're in a meeting discussing something, I can whip out a query in a minute to answer and he'll have to take it back to his office after the meeting and work on it for ten minutes to find the same. He's slow at typing. He's poor at using auto-complete. He constantly needs to reference documentation and diagrams.
The thing is though, he produces solutions that are actually good and work well, unlike some of the others who either make weird designs causing grief down the road or buggy code leading to fire fighting. If I was asked as the manager who I'd like to let go, he wouldn't be near the top of my list. But if I had to sit there fiddling my thumbs while he worked, I'd probably be ready to quit in less than a week. I'm guessing in pair programming he'd hand me the keyboard, but in "mob" programming I'm sure there'd be some enforced round robin system so the one holding the keyboard isn't dominating.
Have you seen the footage where it falls over? Then it hits hard, the remaining fuel sparks and it goes boom way past recovering anything but scrap metal. If they want something that's worth salvaging, it has to land smooth. Also the net wouldn't really help with the first 99%.
Well maybe, but it sounds like the right kind of candidates aren't showing up for the interview which makes it kinda hard to give them offers. Unless they're being overly up-front and present a low and narrow salary range, I'd look into other reasons why they're not attractive enough. If they are scaring them away, be less specific and say you're ready to offer competitive terms for the right candidate. Then you might at least get the right kind of people in the door and maybe sell them on the other benefits, or if not you'll at least know what kind of pay range is necessary.