Guy A writes a nice small program. He releases it under GPL, then promptly dies under a bus. Now guy B takes over the development. Nope, he can't revoke GPL.
Which is an entirely different situation then to what I responded. You stated that the GPL deprives the owner of the copyright to a work the right to relicense their code to another license. This is flat out false and is an unenforceable clause.
GPL clearly states even the owner of copyright on given work can't remove GPL from it.
Bullshit and even if it did say such a thing it would be unenforceable. The copyright owner to a piece of software can change the license at any time on their whim no matter what the original license or any subsequent licenses it is changed to. What the GPL says is that you can not revoke the GPL license off of previous versions of the work.
Even ARM, which is significantly smaller than either of those, makes $305 million in revenue. There's nothing impressive about making $1 million in revenue.
Second, even Microsoft declares themselves open source (even if obviously false), although they claim that the MS-PL is open source (and codeforge or whatever their version is called).
AMD made $5.4 billion last year and Intel made around $35 billion. Each of these companies make more revenue in an hour than the yearly revenue of any of these companies.
No wonder Android phones have been beating iPhone sales all year.
That's funny cause iPhone had about 8.7 million units sold in the first quarter of this year while all android phones combined haven't topped 6 million for the quarter.
I think you missed their point. They were saying that it was an overinflated figure it was the fact that they were providing a figure with too much precision.
Oooh ice burn! The fact of the matter is that Google is not an open source company. No one would accept people claiming that Microsoft is an open source company by pointing out how they have open sourced the ASP.NET MVC framework. Just because Google has open sourced some pet projects that have little to no bearing on their revenue stream doesn't make them an open source company.
*yawn* Come back to us when you show us when they've open sourced the adsense/adwords platform, or all their Linux kernel changes they've kept to themselves, or GoogleF, or their PageRank code. You know, things that are actually fundamental to their revenue stream.
And once an open source project is abandoned by it's primary developers how many of those aforementioned projects actually get revived after that point? I doubt you'll find it's more than few percent or so.
iPhone OS has always had background tasking as all of Apple's own apps use it. The thing was that Apple didn't allow third parties to use any APIs to create multitasking apps.
Slashdot Mirror
Guy A writes a nice small program. He releases it under GPL, then promptly dies under a bus. Now guy B takes over the development. Nope, he can't revoke GPL.
Which is an entirely different situation then to what I responded. You stated that the GPL deprives the owner of the copyright to a work the right to relicense their code to another license. This is flat out false and is an unenforceable clause.
No, I just find it funny that they are butthurt because they can't, for the moment, leech off of Google anymore.
So basically Scroogle is a leech and they got what they deserved.
GPL clearly states even the owner of copyright on given work can't remove GPL from it.
Bullshit and even if it did say such a thing it would be unenforceable. The copyright owner to a piece of software can change the license at any time on their whim no matter what the original license or any subsequent licenses it is changed to. What the GPL says is that you can not revoke the GPL license off of previous versions of the work.
Even ARM, which is significantly smaller than either of those, makes $305 million in revenue. There's nothing impressive about making $1 million in revenue.
Second, even Microsoft declares themselves open source (even if obviously false), although they claim that the MS-PL is open source (and codeforge or whatever their version is called).
0/10. Poor troll is poor.
AMD made $5.4 billion last year and Intel made around $35 billion. Each of these companies make more revenue in an hour than the yearly revenue of any of these companies.
That's great and all but how much profit are they making on that $50 million in revenue?
Smells like a general-purpose computer to me. Works like a general-purpose computer.
And marketed as an internet appliance with a walled garden of functionality.
No wonder Android phones have been beating iPhone sales all year.
That's funny cause iPhone had about 8.7 million units sold in the first quarter of this year while all android phones combined haven't topped 6 million for the quarter.
general-purpose computers like PCs, Macs and the iPad.
There's your problem. The iPad is not a general-purpose computer. It's an appliance.
You can type "fuck" on slashdot.
300+ replies, I mean.
Yes, really. A page with over 300 pages can make a core2quad chug even in chrome.
And yet the AJAX on Slashdot still makes Chrome chug.
What do you do when a closed source project is abandoned by its developers?
Continue to use it?
weren't*
I think you missed their point. They were saying that it was an overinflated figure it was the fact that they were providing a figure with too much precision.
they can't shape what they can't inspect
Sure they can. They'll just throttle any encrypted traffic that isn't on standard ports.
by blood or by words if necessary. that is as important as any independence struggle in the history of universe.
Says the pasty armchair general from his parents' basement.
Oooh ice burn! The fact of the matter is that Google is not an open source company. No one would accept people claiming that Microsoft is an open source company by pointing out how they have open sourced the ASP.NET MVC framework. Just because Google has open sourced some pet projects that have little to no bearing on their revenue stream doesn't make them an open source company.
*yawn* Come back to us when you show us when they've open sourced the adsense/adwords platform, or all their Linux kernel changes they've kept to themselves, or GoogleF, or their PageRank code. You know, things that are actually fundamental to their revenue stream.
And once an open source project is abandoned by it's primary developers how many of those aforementioned projects actually get revived after that point? I doubt you'll find it's more than few percent or so.
Is it because the cable is not expected to be of great length, ala current USB cables?
Duh?
iPhone OS has always had background tasking as all of Apple's own apps use it. The thing was that Apple didn't allow third parties to use any APIs to create multitasking apps.