Huh, no it's not. With Android and iOS -style appstores, users get their apps pushed/updated by a central app store. Developers push their own updates to the up store. That's not like the old Windows pre-store style of users installing applications manually, and each app handling its own updates automatically, if it even did.
Go check out Listaller, will you?
Hear! Hear!
If you think about it for a couple seconds, you'll realize that this is how
Android and iOS works, and the whole appstore model trend is leading.
It's also the reason most Android users don't care that they're stuck
on Gingerbread on their mobiles -- the (leaf) apps they use keep being updated regardless.
I can't wait for a cross distro appstore model to trickle into mainstream distributions,
where leave application maintainers push their upstream instead of having distro packagers do it.
I'm hoping that something like the "Listaller" project really succeeds.
And somehow that argument forgets that they wrote it to work as an extension of a GPL kernel.
IOW, you somehow think its fine for them to to stand on the shoulders of all the kernel's GPL code, without respecting that kernel's GPL license.
If you don't want to GPL your work, then don't make your code a derivative of another GPL work in the first place. This is the crux of the question.
> It is THEIRS, they wrote it, they can do what they will and license it any damned way they want!
Yes, and the people who write the kernel they extended think the same way. But the license they, the kernel copyright owners, chose, is the GPL. If this scsi work is a derivate (again, _that's_ what is in the open), and they don't abide by the GPL, then they don't have a license from all the kernel copyright holders to distribute the resulting kernel.
Who is leaching who again?
In a nutshell, Apple lied.
But instead of forcing someone else to write it down for you, which you'll have to read anyway, why not go read beyond the headlines?
Here, I'll spare the googling trouble for you this time:
Good.
Now Digia should acquire the Trolltech trademark as well if they haven't, and rebrand themselves as Trolltech. Then everyone could forget Nokia ever happened.
Appologies, I misunderstood your other comment as saying something like if "you're caught infringing on GPL, then you have to release your sources". I now see that's not what you meant.
> If I want to use a GPL library that (for example) has nice string parsing I have to publish the code to my entire multi-million dollar software project
> because of that one small component that I could write in a few days. That is completely ridiculous.
What is completely ridiculous is that people still spread this FUD. You do _not_ have to publish the code to your entire multi-million dollar software project. If you fail to comply with the license, then you don't have a license to use the GPL library, and then you're infringing copyright.
Releasing your code is one way to rectify the situation, that it is not the only one. Nothing _forces_ you to publish your code.
> I agree, but what makes me ponder is that the European court said to allow copyright on an API would allow
> monopolizing ideas.
Ponder what? This is exactly what Alsup also said.
s/being tor/behind tor/
Where's the edit button...
Are you worried about sensitivity issues? That does not seem to be a valid technical reason. Even if such image pops up, you're being tor, so nobody will know you've seen it. That does not seem a good reason to spread unjustified "Never visit
As for #2, yes, that's what I was thinking. Even a frame could be load from non-onion sites. Heck, you can easily wrap the whole page inside a frame... It seems to be that if that's a worry, then the browser should forbid accesses to non-onion sites from onion sites, either built in, or with a plugin (for user clicks, pop-up a "are you sure you want to go there" warning).
#3 and #4 seem to have nothing to do with onion at all. Those can trigger in non-onion domains just the same.
> Warning: view either site with images and cookies disabled in your browser. Never visit
Why? Any reference to where the issue is described?
That's not true at all.
#1 - glibc is a GNU project
#2 - to contribute code you do need a copyright assignment to the FSF.
You've confused something else.
> She said that for the first 2 months after we met she understood about 20% of what I said.
Still! she dates you? You must be some piece of work.
You're wrong. That's not why the GPL was invented. There must be a lot of uninformed people out there to mod that insightful...
The GPL was invented as license that preserves the user's 4 freedoms as the code is passed between users:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The FSF, who wrote the GPL, are totally okay with businesses using GPLed code. (a link to a reference escapes me now, but it's there over fsf.org).
You're also wrong in thinking that only volunteers use the GPL -- lots of company's have business models mounted on GPL code.
E.g., Red Hat, AdaCode,
Most easy example: keystrokes.
Data, e.g., passwords, sent over https encrypted connections aren't visible by the carrier.
Yet, if the carrier logs keystrokes, they get to see them. A malicious third party could hijack the data as well.
Got it?
Life is a healthy respect for mother nature laced with greed.
