Yeah, because the multi-billion dollar News Corporation couldn't quite manage that before.
Seriously, the amount they'll pay for a movie is based on how much they expect it to make. Not how much they have in their coffers.
The license don't matter in this case. Even if Opensolaris was 100% GPL, Oracle still would release Solaris with propietary addons. They can do that because they own the copyright (if you want to get a patch into the opensolaris repositories, you need to give first your copyrights with Sun/Oracle). The license doesn't matter to them. Sun/Oracle can release propietary versions of Solaris, but nobody else can - that's the sad truth behind Sun's "open source".
you might want to double check your windows EULA. You already made said agreement.
i told you Eu parliament wouldnt stand for this.
now we all need to gather behind the parliament, regardless who and where are we from. american and belgian, swedish or italian. even hindu, japanese, brasilian.
if you are from Eu or from an Eu candidate status country, you can officially petition European Parliament. this is a legal right. you can do it online, or you can do it with snail mail, as long as you put your name, address correctly. they all are valid and processed.
here is the link to official petition information page of Eu parliament :
in decades now, a parliament is acting on people's behalf with no agenda. support your parliament.
You're wrong. The phone is sold. The software, service, and SDK are licensed.
I'm sorry if it makes me a fanboi to point that out, but you should probably note that the same is true about your Windows or Linux computer (yes, the GPL is a revocable license as well),
Bullshit. No one needs a license to _run_ GPL code. The license is there for the case of distribution.
In any case, if you supply a closed source license, you're going to need to take out professional indemnity insurance for a very large amount
I don't see why that should be the case. Look at any Microsoft product - it explicitly says in the licence that there is no warranty and no guarantee of fitness for purpose. There's nothing to stop any closed-source licence saying "You cannot have the source code. You have no guarantee that this will work. If it breaks, you own both pieces."
Now, it might be easier to Apple to be able to trace where exactly the app came from than it is for Google...
Not really, if a person is organised enough to make and release this application, they are organised enough to defeat basic tracking. Apple wont have any more information on the attacker then google via their developer programs, pretty much all they'll have is an IP address of where an application was uploaded (defeated by proxies) and a credit card number (defeated by a foreign bank account), all details can be faked.
This is unless Apple has some spying program with their SDK, which of course is illegal.
The Russians have admitted it was an ICBM test. They were trying a launch from a nuclear submarine from a submerged position in the White Sea. The third stage of the ICBM failed.
Although scientists do have an obligation to communicate scientific results and issues clearly to the public, the public needs to have basic scientific literacy to follow; it's something both sides need to invest work in. But people want to use all the nifty things that science produces, but they don't actually want to bother to actually learn to understand how science works. That's a serious problem for the world, because people with no understanding of science end up needing to make policy decisions--sometimes life-and-death decisions for millions of people--involving scientific questions.
We really should let people only use the level of technology that they actually understand; for most people on this earth, including the majority of Americans and Europeans, that means basically living like the Amish.
Artifex is the name of the company that owns Ghostscript, which is a Postscript interperter. Artifex offers Ghostscript under the GPL and a proprietary commercial license.
However, this lawsuit has nothing to do with Ghostscript, but muPDF, which is a PDF library written by Artifex, also offered under the GPL and a proprietary commercial license. Apparently, Palm has not purchased a commercial license to use muPDF, which means they need to abide by the terms of the GPL. However, they haven't provided the source to their PDF viewer app; all they've done is provide the source to the version of muPDF that they're using in their app, but that's not enough--muPDF is GPLed, not LGPLed.
C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas l'Informatique. -- Bosquet [on seeing the IBM 4341]