*sigh* iOS devices are more expensive to begin with. iOS users obviously have more money to spend than brains. It has nothing to do with the quality of the device, and everything to do with being willing to be gouged.
So you're saying iOS users are suckers with too much money to burn.
Or maybe Iron Maiden just happens to produce music that is worth buying, unlike a lot of "new" bands and "artists".
Mod parent up. Way up.
The big argument for dropping POTS is that companies charge more for cell access, and I've yet to see any cell company offer a long distance bundle comparable to what the phone companies offer over POTS lines.
It's not about reliability or better service or easier deployment.
It's about gouging the consumer for every last possible dime.
Where it gets real interesting is the recent decision against Oracle over the Java APIs. That ruling says that you can implement a GPL library's interface under a non-GPL license. So if you license your code under terms other than the GPL, people who rely on those other licenses are free to replace the GPL library with a non-GPL library that is compatible with your terms.
However, in such a case, you are no longer using the GPL code. It would be interesting in court to see how that would play out as to whether the third-party's code using your code is required to abide by the GPL, or if they would be required to specify the specific libraries they are linking to in order to avoid GPL compliance.
In other words, you can license your code under as many additional licenses as you like, but it must be available under the terms of the GPL.
From the GPL:
All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying.
In other words, you can put additional restrictions on your code, but if someone doesn't like them, they can still use it under the terms of the GPL. So the only modifications that make sense is to grant additional permissions, such as a dual-license of GPL or commercial use.
That is not "however you want". It is within the confines of the originating GPL license, not a free-for-all.
There is nothing requiring a library to use the LGPL. That's why it's properly referred to as the "Lesser GPL", not the "Library GPL."
You are absolutely wrong about point 2. A GPL licensed library does not give you the freedom to license your code "however you like." The LGPL does that. Don't confuse the two.
If you use a GPL library, you're required to use the GPL license for your code as well. This is not an accident or a "mistaken interpretation" of the license. It's clearly stated and has been known since the first version of the GPL license was released.
Is still nothing.
And I like it that way.
I'm downtown well away from the "big box" stores that draw the crowds to the edge of the city. The only "competition" I expect at the restaurants is from anyone who's working downtown. (It's not Thanksgiving here in Canada -- we had ours a while back. It was verra nize.)
Ooo. I "fucked" up by running the update tools.
My bad, Mr. Fucktard.
It's not on "special", but with all the yahoos at the stores, I should get *great* service at my local restaurants, whichever one I choose to go to lunch at.
Just wondering if it's the same company. Their memory sticks work fine, but that's a minimally profitable market with a glut of providers nowadays.