Linux users do pay for games: blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Linux-users-contribute-twice-as-much-as-Windows-users
But yes, there are a relatively small number of linux consumer desktops.
"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it."
- Thomas Jefferson
I imagine the comments will be full of complaints about things not working even though it is a Beta. Much like the complaints against Diaspora even though theirs was an Alpha release.
That said, yes I do believe it's wrong to infringe copyright on recent (>~20 year old) articles because you're obtaining the fruits of someone else's labour without permission or accepting their terms.
Your statement begs the question, it does not explain why I should have to accept terms to make a copy of what someone else has worked on.
Yikes, I see you've never heard of exaggeration for effect. There are many different forms of the the hypothesis, and alternative hypotheses, check google.
It is free software. You require a subscription to any update services though. A distribution could possibly set up its own service for updates since it has the client source available
An increase every so often because of inflation would be expected, but anyway If they can increase the price and demand doesn't decrease significantly, what business wouldn't increase the price? After all they are a business and do have obligations to make profit for their shareholders
People on debian-legal are famous for being the most righteous, die-hard, by-the-book types you can possible find. And now we find out glibc wasn't legal?
You want lawyers to not be by the book?!
Read the license terms, it was legal.
I can understand Lucas wanting the name changed and enforcing it through the courts. But why the 5 million in damages (I suspect little damage) , is it really necessary to potentially put a small business that makes products targeted at the disabled out of business?
Slashdot Mirror
err, there are plenty of mini-tablet devices out there (and are pretty decent), i.e archos and others
Buying an open phone from samsung makes sense: the sales people in samsung can see that open phones sell more
While the archos does allow you to install other distributions it does void your warranty
No, Wine is a clean room implementation, they don't have the original source
Linux users do pay for games: blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Linux-users-contribute-twice-as-much-as-Windows-users But yes, there are a relatively small number of linux consumer desktops.
"Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. It would be curious then, if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it." - Thomas Jefferson
FOSS software IS commercial software (a lot of the time).
This reads like an advertisement, it even includes the cost of the service.
It's Apache License 2.0 which is free according to the fsf.
I imagine the comments will be full of complaints about things not working even though it is a Beta. Much like the complaints against Diaspora even though theirs was an Alpha release.
We vote for our MEPs, who vote for a commissioner, who then picks the commission
Go with Ubuntu then? It's bound to be by far the most popular for good reason
They don't have to pay off the elected politicians, just the unelected commission.
I hope Motorola doesn't agree to any settlement like HTC. best for this to go to court to clear android
Ireland has plenty of US companies based there for tax reasons. Microsoft, Intel and others
That said, yes I do believe it's wrong to infringe copyright on recent (>~20 year old) articles because you're obtaining the fruits of someone else's labour without permission or accepting their terms.
Your statement begs the question, it does not explain why I should have to accept terms to make a copy of what someone else has worked on.
Explain how copyright infringement is morally wrong?
Copying is not theft
As a physicist I am annoyed at people regarding this string idea as a theory. It dilutes the meaning of the word theory.
Yikes, I see you've never heard of exaggeration for effect. There are many different forms of the the hypothesis, and alternative hypotheses, check google.
It is free software. You require a subscription to any update services though. A distribution could possibly set up its own service for updates since it has the client source available
I should add that I mean they don't need to add services to increase the price
An increase every so often because of inflation would be expected, but anyway If they can increase the price and demand doesn't decrease significantly, what business wouldn't increase the price? After all they are a business and do have obligations to make profit for their shareholders
People on debian-legal are famous for being the most righteous, die-hard, by-the-book types you can possible find. And now we find out glibc wasn't legal?
You want lawyers to not be by the book?! Read the license terms, it was legal.
I can understand Lucas wanting the name changed and enforcing it through the courts. But why the 5 million in damages (I suspect little damage) , is it really necessary to potentially put a small business that makes products targeted at the disabled out of business?