I'm not sure if he is going to answer but if you don't explicitly waive copyright then you retain it. Releasing software to GitHub with no copyright notice means the original author retains all rights. No one else has a right to use it excluding exceptions to copyright law like fair use...
The point is that effectively permissively licensed programs can be made proprietary. The criticism is true. It is not FUD to tell people about proven dangers that have been multiply repeated. It isn't FUD to talk about how drunk driving gets people killed.
I think you are missing my point. The FSF could run the enterprise server with different policies and allow people to point their iPads and iPhones to it. They don't have to create anything. They don't have to change Apple's behaviors. They just need to use the features that Apple already provides to do most of what they want. Obviously the FSF can't overcome Apple's billions in R&D. They can't produce a better tablet. But they can follow simple directions and setup their own app store with their own policies that phones could choose to register against.
The system for Linux was from XFree86 which came after the work in the 1980s. Which I explained several times. The fact that 20 years ago it was so far behind and that many people were using commercial X's for Linux is the evidence of how badly the BSD model had failed.
As for OpenSSH has had many similar failures. Apache itself so far has mostly been cooperative and collaborative. At the same time the extensions into app servers like Tomcat have forked over into proprietary products. So in this case the ecosystem doesn't work.
But ultimately we have X.Org and all those old UNIX systems pretty much died out.
Ultimately they did. XFree86 outcompeted them. But the years in between were lost. The damage it did to free systems may not have been fixable. Those lost years were the period when Microsoft got their desktop model more unified with XP. A key reason why Linux on the desktop didn't happen. And of course the tremendous number of features which even now 25-30 years later are not part of X11 can't be magically added. X is precisely the kind of disaster that the GPL people talk about. It is the original example of total license failure from a free software perspective.
To the contrary there are a lot of hugely popular examples of success: Docker, OpenStack, OpenSSL, OpenSSH, Apache webserver, Hadoop, WebKit, zlib, postgres, OpenLDAP, Ruby, Clang, X.Org, etc.
I don't know that those are all successes. Hadoop has tons of proprietary extensions that aren't making it into the open product. Hadoop would have been experiencing what X experienced, except that Hortonworks has done such a good job of keeping the open source product viable while MapR. Revolution and Cloudera have been forking away. OpenSSL/OpenSSH have had proprietary extensions which aren't in the open product. Postgres has proprietary extensions. OpenLDAP, Ruby both do. I don't know about Clang.
Docker, OpenStack, etc... are new. They are with their original creators.
So here we have your list. And virtually every example demonstrates the failure of the BSD licensing model. That's the problem a long proven track record of failure. Webkit may be the only success on that list where the open product is as good as the closed ones. Now in most cases the open product is still usable from your list, but you picked your list so that this would be true. There are may examples where that isn't true.
The AC above claimed Linux kernel was the only example.
Compare that to download from anywhere & install, which is the way with FSF software
True, but provisioning files are a security feature. It is one of the many reasons that virus are much more difficult to create for iOS. If you can sign your own software that makes software installation more difficult.
Now yes, you can get some agreement with Apple if you are big, successful, and/or have cash
This is not some mystery. You pay a nominal fee and you can run your own server replacing some of the functionality. Many of the MDM's include the enterprise SDK and some are sold on a per device per month basis.
Of course they mean DOWNLOAD from the Apple iTunes cloud services. Go try and play that video on your GNU/Linux box.
I can play non-DRMed content that I buy from the Apple ITunes services fine on a GNU/Linux box. I can also stream / share that content to a GNU/Linux box even if it is DRMed (obviously there needs to be a Mac in the loop somewhere). So even that description is not accurate. The problem isn't the store the problem is the DRM. The publisher determines if they want Apple to apply DRM or not, that's not Apple doing anything but enabling the choice for publishers. Some movies don't have DRM. It is reasonable to object to them enabling this. It is reasonable to object to the publishers choosing this. It is simply false to claim that Apple is regulating every use of every movie.
The Apple software distribution model prevents John Smith from releasing software for iOS without getting approval from Apple in any feasible way.
That's still not true you still need to weaken it one more step. The iOS software distribution model prevents John Smith from releasing non-enterprise software for iOS without getting approval from Apple in any feasible way. Microstrategy which AFAIK sells more iOS software than anyone else in the world has very little of their product in the App store. They just don't sell on a $2.99 basis to individuals.
Another way of saying this is that Apple provides a regulated consumer ecosystem. One can certainly argue the advantages and disadvantages of a regulated consumer ecosystem vs. a fully open one. But mischaracterizing and misdescribing Apple's policies and technology do not aide that conversation. Anyway you cut it the FSF is either being incredibly sloppy or dishonest in their critique and that deserves criticism.
Again if the FSF doesn't like Apple's policies why not run their own enterprise SDK and allow people to point to their systems instead of Apple's? Apple fully supports this. They don't need to do anything tricky here.
The closest thing to symlinks on *NIX systems
And, of course, I meant 'to shortcuts' there.
There are a few differences. First, symlinks are a property of the filesystem. This means that the normal filesystem APIs just work with them and you need special APIs for things that care about whether it's a link or not. In contrast, shortcuts are just another kind of file and everything that wants to follow them needs to know what the target is. Second, shortcuts contain a lot more information than just a path: they include the path to the destination file, an icon, the set of command-line arguments to pass, and some other flags. For example, I used to have a load of different shortcuts to the WinQuake (and, later, GLQuake) executable that all had different -game flags, for launching different mods. Many of them also had different icons, if the mod came with its own icon. You can't do that with symlinks.
The closest thing to symlinks on *NIX systems is
They would never prosecute the NSA, they don't want to lose those agreements.
The NSA spying on Merkel is a diplomatic faux pas, but it changes nothing. The German people get angry, German politicians say a few huffy words, and no one doers anything. Because Germany is playing the same game the NSA is in every capacity with the BND.
You are a fool if you think it will ever be otherwise and you are bigger fool if you are German and you think it should be otherwise. The point of spying is to gather vital intelligence. Every nation does it. Every nation always will. What kind of airhead thinks it will ever be otherwise or should be otherwise? To respect people's private information? Am I supposed to laugh?
Does anyone think a few idealistic naive bloggers is ever going to change the nature of espionage? Are there really people out there who think espionage can ever be respectful or honest or straightforward?
I agree they should not prosecute the bloggers, but exactly what the hell were these bloggers thinking? They were going to shut down or change the nature of spying? Make it respectful and transparent? What kind of quixotic cluelessness about reality is this?
If you have 64GB of RAM, you can cache the entire SSD. Then you won't have to issue TRIM commands!
My SSD is 1 TB. The other one is 256 GB. SSDs today are a lot larger than you seem to realize.