Ok, here's one. WTF does SCEA have any jurisdiction to bring this mater forward? What legal standing do they have?

The console is made in Japan. The rights are own by the Japanese company. The business agreement they tried to fuck Geohot over indicate clearly that SCEA knows this. The SDK that they were trying to prove was on Geohot's hard drive doesn't even contain any information concerning the SCEA. So what is their legal standing here?

Forget whether or not it's reasonable to assume that everyone knows that the SCEA even exists, lets start with the basics. Can it even be shown that they have the right to bring this civil suit?

And that's YOUR spin on it, which contrasts with THEIR spin on it that they aren't ready for it to be released in the wild yet because it still needs fixing for the device category that it wasn't designed for and they don't want to kill the brand by letting it out the door broken, only for cheap manufacturers to push it out as is and blame Google if it doesn't work.

My spin on it matches theirs. Because I get that Open doesn't mean "Immediate access the day it was conceived".

When was "It's not ready for release yet" equal to "We'll never give it to you, hahahaha!" - Answer, when someone with an axe to grind wants to spin it negatively.

Some people even license their code under multiple licenses for different purposes (i.e. a commercial license for enterprise business and an open source license for the 'hobbyists') at the same time, however almost all open source licenses are not revocable unless the licensee violates the terms. Meaning if you release something as BSD and then later decide to kill the project by yanking your code, it'll only work if no one cared enough about it to download the code to begin with. Also remember that one of the 'powers' of open source is that if you decide to yank the code, anyone who had already gotten it is fully licensed to continue to distribute, update, and distribute updates under that license as well (aka forking).

As long as you own the copy rights to your code then any license change you make applies to the whole work. Just remember that anyone who had gotten the code prior to the change is not bound to it (assuming it's a normal open source license). But then also, they are only 'grandfathered' into the old license on the version they have obtained. So if you've updated the code after the change, those updates would be unavailable to them without accepting the new license.

Yes. Yes it does. Sadly, I don't see the government doing squat about it.

My mistake in terminology, AT&T will not provide access to their lines for other companies unless you are carrying service with them.

In other words, if I want to have DSL Extreme (a national DSL provider that deals primarily with Verizon) be my DSL provider, I can do so, but only if I have at least basic phone with AT&T. AT&T will not simply lease the line as other telco's will do. (For instance Verizon).

I can get just DSL with AT&T, but since my reason for the move was due to the fact that currently I utilize over twice the amount of bandwidth on my line as the new caps will allow, it makes little sense to do so.

Thanks for looking though.

Or you can go really all out: Incredible PBX, and have a complete PBX system with only the need of an internet connection.

Till it was reaffirmed for me that AT&T is an ass-hole company on par with Bank of America, and won't sell dry loops for DSL unless you have some other service with them, I was considering the upcoming bandwidth caps they are putting in place as an excuse to move to a non-major Telco like DSL Extreme and use the above to replace the phone line.

However now it looks like I'll have to keep a basic line alive just to get the DSL loop, so it's looking more like it'll just be a 'geek' project once I find suitable hardware for it.

No, he makes himself look like a giant, pompous jerk with an ego the size of Jupiter, the card merely confirms it.

I wasn't a customer but from your description it was what Google Voice and Google Chat are becoming?