Comment Re:Christ, AGAIN!? (Score 5, Informative) 296
Here's one (and I have the SmartQ7 model): http://www.smartdevices.com.cn/
Nice and cheap.
Comment What about our software freedom? (Score 4, Insightful) 296
Most (if not all) of those ARM devices have proprietary graphics cards, so the only way to maintain our software freedom is to use framebuffer (when possible at all).
It'll mean nothing [to dominate the ARM devices market] if our software freedom has bow before the shackles of a few companies.
Comment Re:BadOS? (Score 2, Informative) 175
BadOS? Was Windows Mobile rebranded?
Bada is a GNU/Linux, running E17. Anyone used to program with EFL already heard the news a while ago, and will be able to recognize familiar Elementary elements in some of the screenshots.
Comment Re:As usual, no one wants to be the leader. (Score 1) 292
They are zip files. I've used several times plain ZIP to change jar files. No problem at all. Since you said that, are you a Java developer? Seems so...
Submission + - IBM says software patents drive OSS development (zoobab.com) 2
zoobab writes: "In its Amicus Brief to the US Supreme Court on the Bilski case, IBM is arguing that "patent protection has promoted the free sharing of source code [...] which has fueled the explosive growth of open source software development." IBM also argue that the machine-or-tranformation test allow software to be patented, and that "software patent protection provides significant economic, technological, and societal benefits". IBM also "finds alarming decisions in the wake of Bilski concluding that software is excluded from patentable subject matter" making references to the BPAI decisions on Ex Parte Altman. IBM also says thet are "committed to ensuring that such technology [software] is and remains patentable"."
Comment Re:Embrace... (Score 3, Informative) 274
Kill X, login in the console, rmmod the kernel module, insmod the new one, start X.
Voit-lá, no reboot for upgrade of graphics card driver.
Comment Re:David versus Goliath (Score 3, Interesting) 101
So your point is that a very popular non Free Software phone, backed by Google and major phone makers has more fame? You just won the Sherlock Holmes award!
BTW, OpenMoko is the first Free Software Android Phone....
BTW, OpenMoko is the first Free Software Android Phone....
Comment Re:without interruption of its primary function... (Score 1) 332
How come whenever software patent defenders are challenged on the merits of software patents, they *only* come up with hardware as an excuse?
Get the &"%# off software, you leeches.
Comment Re:Broken summary (Score 2, Insightful) 263
The EU directive is not that strict, but the law in EU countries might be. An EU directive is not a law by itself, it is a directive to enact a law. The EU members can exceed the requirements of the directive, and if the UK has enacted a law which requires ISPs to store web URLs, then the UK has clearly "overaccomplished" (surprise surprise...)
The data retention directive specifically says they must retain elements that identify the origin and the destination.
Please read it. The level of fachism scares me.
From what they demand to storing URLs, is merely a matter of semantics, and the danger of that being done was predicted long before the directive was approved.
The Data Retention Directive is the equivalente to having a spy per citizen, noting down who he talks with, where and for how long.
Would you accept this in real life? No. Why do you accept it online?
Repeal the Data Retention directive now!
Comment Re:without interruption of its primary function... (Score 1) 332
You're right that you don't have to implement an idea to patent it. But your patent still only covers such an implementation, even if it's never done.
It totally begs the question: how is that a benefit to society?
Comment Re:without interruption of its primary function... (Score 3, Insightful) 332
What you write in software is the expression of one idea in a certain language.
You don't "invent" software, software has been invented many eons ago when living beings got brains.
What software patents cover is the concept. If they covered a specific implementation, they would provide a worse legal environment than the copyright, in the point of view of the authors, for it would last many, many years less.
And as anyone who wrote software can tell you, ideas are a dime a dozen, the devil is in the details. It's the expression that counts in software, and not the concept.
Comment Re:Macs, moonlight. (Score 4, Insightful) 312
Well, suppose you're selling GNU/Linux desktops. Now to make your bidding for a public tender in Portugal you need to NOT USE your own dogfood?
You need to buy from your competitors in order to compete against them?
Seriously folks, this is a REAL issue (plus, this mess was paid with my taxes, I'll have to demand a refund).
Comment Re:Apache? (Score 2, Insightful) 188
Since you got moderated to "insightful" and I don't have moderation points in this article, I'll have to take the bait:
the Apache license is MUCH more free than the GPL
They're both just as Free Software. Claiming one is "more free" than the other, is a proof that you're confusing issues and still have something to learn about Free Software licensing, because for instance...
in that you can do anything you want with it
No, you can't. You can't claim you're the author, for instance. Actually, it's very hard to find a popular license where you can do that. In some jurisdictions, it is even legally impossible to do so.
including closing it if you are so inclined.
That you can, and it is a crying shame.
Plus you don't have to buy into the feverish and rabid philosophy of the majority of GPL disciples.
Funny you should say that, since your comment is quite philosophically rabid, like the majority of the GPL haters club.
Plus, let's flip this on its head: do you REALLY want to have to publish your changes so that Microsoft can take advantage of your hard work?
No Free Software license mandates publishing. The GNU GPL in particular only mandates that IF AND ONLY IF you publish, then you must provide the same rights and obligations (in a very broad overview, read the text for the gory details) you got when you got a copy of said software.
Besides, when you do publish in a license like Apache's, Microsoft can take advantage of your hard work and it is very likely to do so.
Indeed it has done so, albeit not Apache, but a somewhat similar but quite shorter license, previously.
Apple Bans iPhone App For Competing With Mail.app 464
recoiledsnake writes "Another submission has been rejected from the iPhone App Store, this time for 'duplicating the functionality of the iPhone Mail application.' The author claims that his application allows the user to log into their multiple web email accounts and that Apple seems to be confusing Gmail and Mail.app. This comes on the heels of Apple rejecting an application for competing with iTunes and rejecting other silly but harmless apps as being of 'limited utility.'"
ComputerWorld has an update to the rejected Podcaster app mentioned above. It seems the developer has used Apple's "Ad Hoc" service to begin distributing the software despite the fact that they blocked it from the App Store.
Submission + - Comparison of IBM, Sun, Microsoft patent covenants (nyud.net)
harlows_monkeys writes: Here is a side-by-side listing of Microsoft's patent covenant for their XML document formats, Sun's patent covenant for ODF, IBM's patent covenant for ODF, and Microsoft's Open Specification Promise. The corresponding sections from each are colored the same, to make comparison of exactly what each grants and does not grant easier. There's been a lot of talk about some of these licenses recently, and whether they are safe or not. Hopefully, this side-by-side comparison will make it easier for people to figure out for themselves what the licenses mean and whether or not they are safe.
