People started caring about gtalk's inner workings when they realized they could not longer see a lot of their contacts (the non-google ones) in the new "hangouts" clients.

Jabber precedes Skype. XMPP precedes Gtalk.

Seems like most of your claims are invalid.

Also, there's a new XMPP<->SIP federation standards in the works (it's still a IETF draft though).

a) There's GPG for XMPP, which is not so uncommon.
b) They intend to federate to XMPP, so, all this applies to IMPP.
c) SSL isn't end-to-end.

As for binary blobs, there's jingle.

Yeah, but good luck trying to find an exploit on the OpenBSD kernel to access my stuff.

I think GP was trying to state something on the grounds of "why do you have such a preference for FLOSS software, but work building propietary software?".

I really disklike the how we inhereted all that "inheretance" stuff from the monarchy. The son of the rich are rich, and it's a right of blood.
Wow, kings and princes weren't the same, right?

Copyright exists to motivate author to create works of art, not to make their grandchildren richer.

That means it makes no sense for copyright to extend beyond death.

Yeah, but if copyright expires on death, then the book completed by the author's family is half uncopyrighted, half copyrighted by whomever completed it.
Since noone know which half is which, it's essentially the same as being fully copyrighted by the family.

No, that's unusual.
Most of the people that don't add a license don't add it to their software because don't want to restrict it's usage. They just want to share the code.

People that WANT complex licenses with plenty of restrictions will be explicit about them.

I must be dreaming. Not only does this first post NOT say "first", but it's actually really informative!
Did I mistype "slashdot" today? :|

If he gave you a license to reuse his code, he can't sue you for reusing his code; that's how it helps.

Well, if a folk placed stuff without a license, I'm guessing he cares little what happens to his code, so he won't want it as locked down as the GPL locks it down - if he wanted all those restrictions, he'd have specified them.

Google is like George R R Martin:

It completely impossible to know who'll die next, but you can always be sure someone's about to die really soon!

Yeah, you need a lawyer to understand something like the BSD license:

Yeah, but there's no list of accepted licenses, so I could just wait for someone to reuse my code, and then sue them "yeah, that was released under MCFSL (My Crappy Free Software License), which requires you to [insert really annoying requirement that you want to avoid here]".

But what happens when some troll comes around, saying you used their code without permission, and violated his rights as an author?
I mean, troll like that are bound to start appearing, that's why we should specify licenses in the first place. To make others certain we're not that sort of troll.