Apparently AMD's hardware absolutely rocks on the next-gen architectures like those two, and Vulkan being directly based on Mantle can't hurt even a teensy bit.

AMD being the king-of-the-hill for VR would make a world my ooooh-goody-competition-means-good-prices little heart is just piiiiining for.

Except they haven't done it.

Gee, so the heavy pirating didn't start until he started smearing shit on the deal, hmmm, hmm hmm hmmmm.

Seems people's sense of fairness doesn't always match the laws, and if CEOs and copyright self-entitlers can get away with it, maybe there's a bit too much glass around for anybody to start complaining. There's nothing in that aphorism about who built the house.

There needs to be a pre-emptory "fair use" counterclaim that (a) leaves the claimed-infringing material up and (b) puts the issue of fair use in front of a magistrate within madeupnumberten days unless the claimant abandons the DMCA claim. The magistrate can decide whether or not a respondent versed in case law would have a reasonable expectation of winning. *expectation*. Loser pays a madeupnumber$500 fee for forcing the decision, plus up to some similar amount in actual costs. Anyone with amounts in arrears is denied access to this procedure. Most importantly: loser can force the issue to trial, can establish precedent in case law so in the future people _can_ reasonably expect a particular result.

Yay for the personal blocklist.

You can do that now.

Well, no, not quite. It's an F-16.

Selective much?

Well, sure, if we very, very carefully, look only where you want us to look, it looks like you've got a case for something here.

Unfortunately for your argument, OS X is not BSD licensed. OS X is Cocoa. You can't name anything anyone regards as an OS X application that doesn't need Cocoa, and Cocoa is locked up tighter than Fort Meade. If you open an OS X programming guide, take an OS X programming class, attend an OS X developer's conference or seminar, use the interface of any OS X application or tool, it's Cocoa. Cocoa is not BSD licensed. OS X is not BSD-licensed. Apple is not making money off the FreeBSD part of OS X, they're making money off the Cocoa part, and more power to'em.

IBM, on the other hand, sells and supports Linux systems. Oracle sells and supports their own Linux distro.

Google -- Android's little-to-no more Linux than OS X is FreeBSD, so what was your point about people choosing BSD licensed innards?

Oh, yeah: "wrong".

Google? Red Hat? IBM? Oracle, even? All deal in major linux-based platforms for big bucks. I don't think your characterizations and hypotheticals even pass the laugh test.

You can only offer the GPL on code for which you hold copyright. The conditions you're stipulating in the GPL, the restrictions, are on the distribution of your software. Others can still distribute their own software on any terms they like, they just can't distribute your software except on terms you like. They can't add pennies to the vault and then treat the vault as if it were their own.

The GPL doesn't impose restrictions, not unless you regard being granted less than the maximum conceivable license as a denial of something you had some right to expect.

Time to present a limited set of fonts and plugins to untrusted urls?

If you're putting down roots and substantially improving the place, it's yours. If there's some disagreement on that point, take case to a Judge, in open court.

You can use win-plus and -minus to zoom in and out, and win-esc to end, if you didn't know that, try it.

It's a hell of a lot easier to make minor fixups/additions to code than the frightened are willing to credit.