And what's to stop them from lying?
Mainstream isn't allowed to talk about it because it would piss off obama's backers
you mean like castro does with cuba?
it's easy to be legal if you're the one making the law.
And maybe indian officials know this and smell a nice chance to extort some money out of the situation by taking advantage of microsoft's desperation
most likely MS would refuse to issue new patent licenses to any OEM supportung UDF
Do we mean better, or do we mean more amenable to japanese political influence?
There will never be peace as long as at least two people want to be better than everyone else. Only one person can be at the top of the list, and if you have more than one person competing for that spot you're going to have conflict.
But that would reduce the leverage of the big boys to shut out competition. This whole scheme of being liable for the acts of outsiders is specifically to discourage them from contributing, or the projects from accepting contributions. They WANT projects to be paranoid about accepting outside contributions.
The theory is that the CEO eats it, and then craps it down on whoever was responsible for it.
Too long ago.
They stole a truck with no idea of the cargo's value or importance, and probably didn't even care if someone else could die if they stole it. It might have been medical supplies, vaccines, food rations, anything. And if they'd gotten involved in a high speed pursuit they could have killed someone just running away. Not to mention their willingness to threaten deadly force in the act, which would have given the driver grounds to use the same in self defense, even without the cargo being lethal.
Which would itself only increase any self defense fatality in being justified if the thieves had gotten shot.
They jacked a rig, had no concern for the value of human life, and it bit them in the ass. To be blunt, they had it coming.
The fact that the authorities aren't even going to be responsible for punishing them means they have nobody to blame but themselves.
It wasn't a mistake
The vagueness is intentional. They *want* the law to be full of landmines that judges can detonate at their pleasure on whoever their puppetmasters don't like.
Does that mean that Google is off the hook for it and that Oracle needs to go after the contractor directly?
Or does it mean that Google eats it but then turns around and sues the contractor for indemnification?