So what? The shameless company is sticking to the license. How is this wrong? I don't get this. The sources are still available and actively developed. The shameless company might employ some of those developers (it does) and contribute back to the community (it does).

I am a programmer who's employed to work on public domain software. My software is regularly used by academia and in commercial products. That people find it so useful is a good thing for me. That people can use my software to make money is a good thing, for me, for them, and for our users.

You ideologues are the same as ever, a bunch of fools.

Why bother carrying out the computation to such precision when the error in your measurement of the radius (or diameter) would be so much bigger.

I've looked at and modified the software in question. It bins the records in space and in time. The bins are 1/100 degree (0.6 nm, ~1.1 km, ~0.7 mi) on a side and one week in duration. The app's UI is a browser control. The binned data is submitted to a web server and the browser control renders the response. I don't believe the "fudge factor" has anything to do with stalking, but is about not throwing too many data points at that server. I have looked at the actual data in sqlite. My observations agree completely with the GP.

LOL. Sorry, I took your comment wrongly.

Oh? so you're gonna drop the table on your phone? Way to hack the server, the one that isn't even collecting the data. Putting that record in the database will do squat.

There does not appear to be one.

How does that work, Macgyver?

This is not even wrong.

I've looked at the table from my iphone. Its primary key is the tuple {MCC, MNC, LAC, CI}, which, if you google for you will find, is the "Cell Global Identity (CGI) identifier". The table has one entry per CGI. Each record has a timestamp, coordinates, and error estimates. The timestamp is not the time at which the cell was last encountered. The table has large chunks (weeks) of time missing. This is especially true when I am not traveling. There are many records from around my home and work, but most do not have recent timestamps. Apparently, new records are added as the phone encounters new cells. This does not appear to be a continuous process as there are gaps in space between clusters in cell-rich areas I have travelled through. Also, there are records from places over 100 km from where I've been.
From this data, you can get a rough estimate of when and where I have been. But the more often I visit an area and/or the longer I am there, the less precise in time the estimate becomes. Combine this with data points that can be 100 km off, and the position becomes untenable that this is a log of your whereabouts.
Apparently, Android logs the last 50 cells encountered *AND* sends this log to Google.

Not at all accurate. Nothing requires changes to BSD licensed code to be also BSD licensed. Moreover, you, as the licensee, have no ability to close the original. Also, your use of Apple as an example fails to support your claim, see http://www.opensource.apple.com/.

Could this be China's final solution to its population crisis?

It is not possible for anyone other than the original authors to change the license on the original source code, and even they can't change it for those who have already licensed it under the current terms. However, the BSD license does not required that changes to source code be licensed under the same conditions as the original source code.

What to you mean "trying"? Last I checked life was still a terminal affair and has been one for a long time.

Dear Adobe Marketing, enough with the trolling.

Please stop. It's incredibly transparent. It just makes you look stupid.
Bring it or be gone. Ship it or shut up.

Exactly, "in-memory analytics" sounds like more marketing BS, just another way to sell some unneeded software or service.

I know it isn't fashionable around here, but did you even see the effing slideshow? It was mostly about old IBM tech from the 1950's. So unless the advertising was for RAMAC's, which you can't just buy anymore, I'm not seeing it.

Do not ever use this phrase, you just completely invalidated what you had just said. By using this phrase, you are saying that you were "just saying" what you had just said and that, therefore, what you had just said was just words, i.e. gibberish.
/rant