It isn't falsifiable because if they come up with a theory that matches the recorded data, there is no experiment that you can repeat in order to falsify their claims.

The whole point of GNU/Linux is that you have complete control over and significant trust of your system. If you bring closed, proprietary, DRM-infested software onto it, you're just turning it into another Windows; you might as well just go back to it.

No, what we need to get these people to do is to give us the code to their engines (even if under a mostly proprietary license). That way we will be able to continue enjoying what makes GNU/Linux attractive and play games as well.

Just because someone has invested a lot of time or effort into making a sequence of bits, it does not mean that they are entitled to profit from it.

The new thinking is that the right of people to share comes before the right of distributors to enforce payment for making copies. The old thinking reverses these priorities.

If the new thinking means that distributors (or creators) cannot make a profit, then so be it. They will have to put their sense of entitlement aside and adapt to the new market reality.

The same people who want to share also want new movies, games and music. If that means they have to pay up-front kickstarter/vodo-style, then they will. It's a new idea with lots of issues to work out, but faced with no other choice, the creators and the public will eventually settle into a functioning system.

There is no going back to strict copyright control without monitoring and censoring all private communications. This is why I think that it is only a matter of time before non-commercial copying is legalised and an alternative creator compensation system becomes everyday reality.

Goto isn't used in Linux for performance reasons. It's used because C does not have exceptions and using goto to jump to clean-up code prevents code duplication. Any sufficiently experienced C programmer will encourage you to do the same.

Of course, Java has exceptions and the finally keyword, so goto is not strictly needed for this purpose.

The GPL3 does indeed state that. But isn't the purpose of section 7 only to allow the copyright holder to work around the fact that the header of the license states that changing it is not allowed? Section 7 explicitly mentions that you have to have permission from the copyright holder to add additional clauses. You may thus add restrictions to the license which are not counter to the spirit of the vanilla GPL3.

But the question is, how does this affect compatibility between "GPL3 with additional restrictions" and just "GPL3"? Since without permission from the copyright holder you cannot add or remove additional restrictions, you may not use the licenses interchangeably. Because the additional restrictions are not present in the vanilla GPL3 (which does not allow additional restrictions unless you are the copyright holder and these restrictions fall under section 7), if you combine GPL3 code and "GPL3 with restrictions" code, it seems to me that there is no possible way to satisfy the terms of both licenses simultaneously.

So the way I see it, although GPL3 allows you to add these terms, by doing so you make your license GPL3-incompatible. If this is the case then it is troubling, and I would welcome any clarification from someone who knows the details behind this.