There is no contract.

Because they make money. They are just saying, either use a phone that doesn't use data, or pay for the data plan

It is only illegal if the phone has been purchased since Jan 2013 AND if you don't own the software on the phone.

Who says it already isn't unlocked? What does that have to do with ATT charging him for a service he isn't using.

"In a simultaneous voice and data communication system" So what does this have to do with WIFI? Is someone somehow attaching a "voice signal" to the wifi traffic?

I don't think attending the school and working on a school project is considered "work for hire." So, I guess the school system can say whatever it wants. It can claim PI is 3, but it doesn't make it so

It may not be "debugging code" but it should only be run in your debug build.
In your release build, it should either do something else (like say, phone home), or do nothing at all.

Why are you following the guy in front of you that close? It seems like if you are that close to him, you might rear end him for another reason, like he brakes for a squirrel. So blame the driver for tailgating, not the red light, or camera.

No, the real question is, do red light cameras make intersections safer.
While not running a red light should make an intersection safer, running a red light doesn't necessarily mean the intersection is more dangerous.
Of course, what is interesting, according to the article seems to imply that there haven't been many accidents with the cameras in place. But doesn't say anything about what the intersections were like before the cameras were in place

Why do you need "extraordinary" evidence? Number of wrecks before the installation, and number after (plus percentages) should be enough.
Do you think the Major is giving up 10 million dollars, voluntarily, if there wasn't some hard evidence?

"brogramming" will kill programming, the same way DUI's will kill Nascar.

I remember when we called cowboy coding cowboy coding, and "brogramming" just a bunch of idiots trying to write code. Oh wait we still do, because they aren't the same thing.

The law doesn't have to be reversed by congress (and of course it won't be, Mickey would throw a fit if Copyright law was overturned)
What needs to happen, is convince people that we own the software in the phone, even if it is under contract.

Whether you "omitted" the license or not, it was released with a copyright and all rights reserved. There is not interpretation involved. And even worse, when people ASKed you gave them PERMISSION... How is that a protest against the permission culture?
Why not release it under Public Domain? Then there is no permission needed, nor even a reason to ask for it.

Are you trying to say that a change has to be made available the SECOND it is added to the code? I can't even generate a copy of it for the testers to test the code? Copying internally to the company is not distributing the code. The company has to be able to test the code and make changes to it before it is released. That requires copying it among themselves. I would suspect people outside the company, working on FOSS, distribute features changes and bug fixes, without actually releasing the code.