Consult Google and educate yourself on the joys of register renaming.
Some of the initial shortcomings of ARM were actually quite serious.
For example, I seem to recall that the cache used virtual, rather than physical addresses. Under a memory protected OS (Linux) the cache would have to be flushed for every context switch; and in addition multiple virtual addresses referring to the same physical address would clog up the cache with needless duplicate entries. They added initial bodges to deal with this ("page colouring") but it was properly fixed in later iterations of the arch.
If you look at libgit2 you'll see an exception has been added to the top of the license such that components which link libgit2 (either statically or dynamically) do not have to release their source under the GPL.
It's an absolutely excellent idea. Git is a solid, high quality piece of software and it benefits everyone who works in software engineering to see it integrated everywhere including on Windows.
Oracle vs Google related to Google's re-implementation of Java. You correctly observe that the case was to do with copyrighting APIs.
However, this matter matter between RTS and Red Hat (and indeed the wider kernel community) is nothing to do with copyrighting APIs. Red Hat appear to be alleging that RTS have created a derived work of the Linux kernel. The issue of whether or not their code is a "derived work" is what is at stake and ultimately may be for a judge to determine.
If RTS retain the copyright on all of their own code and have added this work to a proprietary OS, then there is no GPL violation. However, if RTS have re-used fixes, patches or other enhancements to the SCSI code supplied by third parties under the GPL, then RTS would be in violation. I believe that is the allegation that is being made here.
They had no way of winning this, damned if they did, and damned if they didn't.
I am a massive fan of the BBC, but I don't think it's right that they broadcast a very serious allegation on nothing other than the unconfirmed word of one person without doing a few cursory checks. They appear to simply have shot from the hip.
The business with Jimmy Savile is a lot more complicated. There are two issues to be addressed; one, were they being too strict in their requirement for evidence before they could broadcast those accusations ? And, two - was there some reason for the Newsnight programme investigating those allegations being pulled that was unconnected with concerns about the evidence available ?
Actually British government ministers have indeed been caught carrying confidential and embarassing documentation into offices, including Number 10 Downing St.
I think the expectation that Sweden should tear up their extradition agreement with the USA is a bit much to ask, don't you ?
On top of that Beria killed a lot of people and from time to time threatened pretty much everyone in the Politburo. It stands to reason that as soon as Stalin was out of the way they'd figure out a way to get him.
I really don't think you intended to compare Assange to Beria.
I'm not a member of the GOP, but I think it speaks volumes when those in charge of the party denounce and even take efforts to derail the campaign of somebody who says something so stupid.
I think it's pushing the envelope to suggest that the GOP are somehow in control of events here.
In fact, it seems they always do this
Not really. They did not especially distance themselves from the remarks made by Rush Limbaugh a few months back about Sandra Fluke. Thinking further back, I can imagine other cases eg Clarence Thomas.
The only reason why governments are involved (two of them) is because Assange won't return to Sweden to answer questions about the rape allegations.
The United States and China both support the Vienna convention which holds that the US embassy in China is under US law.
They may need to charge him if the answers to the questions merit it.
Yes, made up by you. No rape charges are outstanding against Assange.
If that's true, then it's for the courts to decide.
As in the USA, the victim is not the person who chooses whether or not the perpetrator is charged. The prosecuting authority does, based on evidence by the police. The police have a mandated duty to investigate all crime as far as is reasonably possible.