The BSD license solely exists because of copyright law, too. You are confused about how copyright works, and what the GPL aims for.

"If you're against copyright, then you're against the GPL."

Exactly. But the GPL haters don't want you to know that.

Exactly. It's sort of a troll license, and it fights against patents too. And BSD also needs copyright, so Idon't get that criticism.

> Apple started the Clang project

No. LLVM started in 2000, in 2005 Apple employed hired a dev to work on it. Unless you were talking only about Clang, which would be silly.
I doubt it would have been open if Apple started it.

> Libertarians hate GNU.

Libertarian here. Nope.
Against copyright, patents, etc.

They already do this. But it might be other kind of fake information (maybe give a lot of fake sources through peer exchange?). It could waste a lot of bandwith with a lot of fake clients sending fake parts.
I'm pretty sure it isn't that effective.

BitCoin is solid, however many services built around bitcoin are built by amateurs.
I heard of an evolution of the protocol, where a coin could require more than one signature to be transfered, this would work around a lot of these issues (unless the users don't do it properly, which is likely).

Looks like you're right, they must be counting every hipster Github project.

As for projects with actual users, I've seen more migrations from GPL2 to 3

Malware has been accepted in the Apple App Store, TFA is bullshit.

The N9 is poorly distributed and very expensive, isn't advertised at all, etc. When you buy it you *know* it will be poorly supported because Nokia has abandonned Maemo.
I had no idea the sales were close to the Lumia. This is a huge FAIL for the Lumia, more than a success of the N9.

Moreover, given the huge number of IPv6 adresses, brute-forcing IPs at random isn't possible. So even if you authorized incoming packets by default in your router, you likely wouldn't be bothered by attacks.

And relying only on NAT for "security" is utterly stupid as there are many ways to traverse NATs.

And IPv6 can do better, without all the ugly side-effects of NAT: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4941.txt

> A small business with maybe 10-20 devices on an internal network doesn't care about IPv6.

IPv6 isn't only about having more adresses. For instance, stateless address autoconfiguration is interesting in a local network.

You could get root access to any iOS device from a web page, by redirecting it to a special PDF file. It was unpatched for weeks.
That's pretty significant.