Does pirating an iphone app require a jailbroken phone?

If so, does that mean the "rule" is that there are more jailbroken phone users out there using these pirated applications than there are non-jailbroken phone users using them?

Doesn't that essentially indicate the apps are overpriced to begin with? (not that this is a legitimate excuse for pirating them).

Does this part of the remedy come in pill form?

Tomorrow?

You're likely missing the bigger picture.

Eventually google's turn-by-turn will have integrated street view imagery, and probably virtual advertisements on the buildings paid for by those businesses (or their competitors)...

Furthermore, as you pass areas of interest, you'll likely see wikipedia articles and user-generated-content (read: pictures/reviews) pop into view (like Google Earth), and eventually google will own your entire travelling experience.

That's cuz everyone's waiting to snipe 'em at the end...

For everyone's sake, please do your "rebooting" in private.

Except plastic is a horrible conductor of heat...

Copper makes the most sense in this application.

I believe even changing a license from MIT/BSD to GPL without author's consent is illegal. You are changing someone's chosen license, that's wrong.

Just because MIT/BSD code can be used in a GPL project does *not* mean the GPL authors can adjust the license of the code they have re-used. Just because their license is restrictive doesn't mean they have the ability to restrict others' chosen licenses as well.

That's great, but if I decide that I want to distribute my MIT/BSD licensed code without requiring said GPL library in every case, the code being distributed without GPL libraries is still MIT/BSD licensed. By linking it to GPL in *some* circumstances, I only have to abide by GPL during those situations where I have distributed it as a "derivative" of GPL... but not in those cases where it isn't.

Thus, if I write my program to use one of two backend libraries - one of which is GPL, and the other which is not, I only have to distribute my code under the terms of GPL when it has been compiled to use the GPL backend, but not when it has been compiled to use the proprietary backend library.

The terms are only applicable at distribution time based on the use of other code at compile/linking time.

no?

No, nobody can fork *your* work and relicense it. As copyright holder of the code you have written, you have exclusive rights to license it however you wish.

Thus, nobody can simply relicense your code without your permission.

Doesn't the license basically stipulate that you must release your code under the terms of the license? That doesn't necessarily mean you have license your code as GPL.

This is actually a common FUD discussion that occurs between developers who use MIT/BSD license for their code, and are afraid to link to GPL libraries because it might force them to release their code as GPL. I'm pretty certain that as long as their code is available under the same terms as GPL code, they can license their code however they wish otherwise. It just means if a GPL nut comes a knockin', they'll have to provide the code as if it was GPL'd.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I often am).

Maybe a few more parameters: How safe of a vehicle you drive (Giant SUV vs. small economy car), and perhaps where you drive (Freeway vs. City traffic)... Whether you primarily drive during the day or night, the weather patterns in your area, etc.

In fact, when I think about it...there are endless parameters that can be applied to measure a "complete picture of risk" (your own words, after all).

Guess my fingers just wanted to type that r on their own ;)