Off topic, but "any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

I'm sure it depends on the building. Some friends and I were talking last week about how irritating it is that the "close door" buttons on the elevators in our building do nothing.

From what I've heard, it's a quarter-truth rather than an outright lie. If Alice finds Bob using friend finder, then this message can appear with Bob's name on it. Because there's no way to tell if a friend request came from friend finder, Bob doesn't know that he's "found friends using friend finder".

That's an interesting point.

However, it's not a new one. This "loop-hole" in the GPL licenses has often been called "software-as-a-service" (SaaS) loop-hole.

That is why there were created a license that fixes this: the Affero General Public License (AGPL).

However, I haven't ever though of applying the SaaS clause in relation to applications running on "iProduct" devices. But I doubt it will hold, unless the application either run on Apples own web servers, or if Apple still (for some reason) still was the legal owner of your piece of hardware, minimum.

If the SaaS "loop-hole" also will be usable for applications running in locked virtual machines/locked-down devices this is a major reason to consider to use AGPL in stead of GPL for your next FOSS project.

That's interesting facts about the changing terms you're pointing out.

However, you should not necessarily confuse GPLv2 for a EULA. Or that would really depend on how you define an End-User License Agreement (EULA).

IANAL, but from what I've read, generally, GPLv2/v3 isn't considered an EULA in the proprietary legal-speak sence, since there is no obligations that you as a *user* of the software have to agree upon before using it.

The GPLv2/v3 will grant you as a GPL software *user* a set of *rights* though, which may be beneficial to you (the "4 freedoms", ref FSF). But this isn't anything you have to agree upon -- you don't even have to take advantage of them.

However, you only have to *agree* with the GPLv2/v3 license when you *distribute* the GPL licensed software (this may happen some time after you have used it, or it may never happen at all). You can use the software all that you want, but you are not allowed to re-distribute it unless you oblige to the GPL license term (which in effect ensures that the down-stream receivers of the software you distribute also receives the same essential 4 freedoms as you were entitled to).

So, if it were a legal cage battle on this topic among true lawyers, it isn't obvious that the GPLv2 (nor v3) would be legally classified as a "End-User License Agreement".

It was pretty good for cheap scientific computing clusters. But it's being replaced now by tower computers with 4 GPUs.

To be fair, until recently there were more people in Philadelphia than in all of Utah.

A study that shows that many high-profile websites (which follow the previous best practices) are insecure because they don't take this into account, and proposes enhanced defense mechanisms.

If you can repeatedly find security flaws in web best practices, you're welcome to come join the lab. It pays about $15/hr, plus half your health insurance.

Disclaimer: I work with these guys.

In addition to the CPGPU or whatever what they're calling it, Fusion should finally catch up to (and exceed) Intel in terms of niftilicious vector instructions. For example, it should have crypto and binary-polynomial acceleration, bit-fiddling (XOP), FMA and AVX instructions. As an implementor, I'm looking forward to having new toys to play with.

A quarter billion seems pretty reasonable for keeping other companies off their turf.

More people have been to Germany than I have.