Very little is "implied" in that contract - if you expect to be able to transfer the funds by Date X, it is put in the contract,
It's like sitting with an obstinate child:-). A house sale often involves a window of time during which funds can be transferred, and the date/time of cleared transfer corresponds to the date/time of transfer of ownership. Thus the particular date/time is implied, not made explicit.
Someone I do work for has recently completed a house purchase with that very term, and it became pertinent because the bank was delaying the clearing of funds. But because the implied date/time of ownership transfer was the very date/time of clearing, he didn't get the keys until precisely the time of day when the funds were confirmed available. This meant paying an extra half day to the firm responsible for moving furniture, but I digress.
in essence "If you don't do this by Date X, seller/purchaser reserves the right to declare this contract void,"
There's no "essence" to "declar[ing] this contract void", sorry. A void contract isn't a contract at all, because it's not enforcable - e.g. my promising to give you anal. A voidable contract is one that/one/ party can unilaterally renege on, e.g. my promising to give you $15 if I were only 15. The "essence" is contract [performance] complete on both sides, i.e. no further obligations.
Don't decorate your tedious argument with attempts to display your plumage of legal experience (congrats, you once bought a house) if you're going to abuse contract law vocabulary so egregiously.
the offer you are making is "to provide"
That language only appears in paragraph 6c), and that option is available, "only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b."
And don't try to turn your error into an "in essence" argument, thanks: learn to interpret what's there rather than simplifying as you see fit.
If the FSF doesn't think that Apple is in violation of the terms of the GPL by taking a few weeks to get all the code posted, doesn't that suggest something to you?
The FSF has better things to worry about, and for some reason takes a fairly lax approach to Apple anyway - probably because they appeared genuinely interested in OSS around the turn of the century, and the FSF can be glacial in their observations of change. But perhaps Brown and Sullivan's recent essays are a refreshing confirmation of their ideals.
I'm done with you. Your tenacity suggested an albeit stubborn willingness to learn, and I have tried to explain in general and specific terms where you have gone wrong with your refusal to read the language of contracts and understand their implications. You keep repeating the same argument, each time making a new assumption or unjustified simplification. Have a nice day!
A proper P&S contract for a home will specify quite clearly the terms of sale, including dates for move-in and transfer / acquisition of title.
Stop pseudo-lawyering. The ownership transfer may be implied to occur when a particular event has occurred, such as cleared transfer of funds. As to whether there are written "consequences" for "failure to deliver", this is just complicating the nature of the required performance in the case of the house sale. For Apple and the house seller, the court still exists to compel performance or enforce collection of damages.
The GPL contains no such provisions, leaving the interpretation of "when" the code must be delivered as a matter for 2 parties (or a court) to determine.
No, it doesn't. The terms of the GPL reinforced by the Apple EULA imply current availability, not future availability.
If you don't like Apple's delay, take them to court and get a ruling against them if you think you can.
I, as an end user, have suffered only a minor breach. I'd claim as damages the loss I've suffered by not having access for n weeks to the source code which was indicated as available in the EULA. This is fairly hard to quantify, and, what with all those silly disclaimers in the EULA, pointless to argue.
The FSF, on the other hand, own the copyright to the code Apple are pirating, and have a good argument for material breach. They're the only ones who can push to require specific performance of Apple.
The GPL *does* simply say you must provide the code
No it doesn't, and I've quoted what it actually says enough times that I've concluded you're being deliberately stolid, you laughable fanboy.
But I look forward to offering you a plot of land with a house on it. I'll enjoy the interest accrued while I take advantage of your lackadaisical reading of contracts to take a reasonable amount of time to build the house after you've paid. It's enough that the bricks already exist - don't get so pissy that they're not yet in the right place!
Some of those Scottish islands would probably be smaller than some of the properties around our area.
Why is some of America so proud of having everything so big, even while it exposes all the problems with huge unmanaged expanses?
when the closest town is a half hour drive away and a fire starts
Not that rural, then. Where I was in Scotland the closest town was about a 45 minute drive away.
you don't wait for the pros,
Well, yes you do. Because they're on call or on stand-by, in a hamlet 5 minutes away. Occasionally first responders might be doing something else, like you kids with your frontier macho nonsense, but they're professionally trained, paid and supplied with equipment. While you're doing initial work, the helicopter's flying in to take people to the island hospital, or the nearest mainland hospital if necessary.
I don't know what you have in Scotland but here we have industrialised farms, some of them with water pumping capacity that many fire departments could only dream about.
Rural farms with their own water sources? Well, I'm fairly sure the island has had them before America was even colonised by Europe. I don't really care to do a penis size comparison of how many gallons and hour a random site can pump, but you can be assured that private supplies would be used by the fire crews if necessary.
You judge the motivations of the people doing the work but you haven't stepped up to the plate yourself.
Really? Or is it just that you're so keen to advertise what little you have done, whereas I am arguing on principle, and wouldn't want to fill the conversation with irrelevant anecdotes about how much of a hero I am.
one of the lowest forms of life, below even politicians.
They do have the choice to innovate better methods of communicating without having to physically travel. Cheaper and faster than travelling. Produced some cool tech like the Interweb.
Refuse to cross borders which have unreasonable search policies.
If you don't, you're implicitly accepting them. It's your fault.
If that means you have to stay in your country entirely, so be it. Many people survive while staying in their own country.
If you lackeys would give up some of your iToys for a moment and stand up for what's right, even if it means a slight loss of comfort, the government would be forced to change.
Yes, I've stopped travelling by air. Yes, I've stopped travelling to America. I did both frequently and willingly before the post-11/9 intrusions, and loved going to the US. But I think in the long run it'll help both my country and yours if I make a stand, as long as others follow.
No, that's not the point. The point is that you claimed: I can't think of anything worse than to be saved
Imagine this isn't a geeky site where everyone claims faux Asperger's and uses that as an excuse to base their argument on an overly literal interpretation. IOW, and I'll try to make this explicit as I would to a slow child, turn on your sarcasm detector and put obnoxious air-quotes around "saved", because saving me is precisely what the fireman characterised above won't be so likely to do if they're in it for wine and women.
I made this quite clear in the next post, but you chose to skip over it, proving your wilful ignorance.
If a fire alert went out, everybody left what they were doing and came, with our own water tanks, our own pumps on our own trucks.
That's a primitive way to deal with fire and rescue, no more developed than pre-Victorian England. How many die during those extra minutes while you transition from what you were already doing and group together? Who's the trained medic? Who flies the helicopter?
Don't tell me these questions are unreasonable in a rural area: they've been answered with a dedicated state-provided service in rural Scottish islands which coordinates part-time, full-time and on-call trained firemen and paramedics who do it because they like to, not because they're scared their shack will crumble.
We didn't need people with some idealised purity of motive, we needed people who would turn up and help.
"As long as you think you're doing it, but don't question motive and resultant performance, efficiency and development." Yep, sounds like US business on the shop floor to a tee, and explains why their manufacturing and service industries are nothing compared to the Far East's. "We just need people" like the government which "just needs more taxes".
the GPL simply says "you must make the offer to supply source code,"
The GPL doesn't "simply" say that. It's more specific. You can't simplify a legal document, interpret it in your simplified light, then call the consequences of the words you've ignored "imaginary".
How very 1984 for someone siding with Apple to accuse an FSF advocate of "lawyering"!
FOSS advocates will still wonder why businesses are wary of investing significant efforts into open source work, and "contributing back to the community."
1. Considering its requirements, GPLd/quasi-GPLd software has had more investment than I'd ever have expected from business.
2. Even if it hadn't, much of the community wouldn't care. All they want is code distributed for everyone to use and improve, and the only thing asked for is that you comply with the simple terms.
False on several counts. Read the licence. If you're not distributing source physically, you must provide an offer "to give anyone who possesses the object code [...] access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge."
Where Corresponding Source (CS) is "all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities."
Thus:
1. The CS must exist as a prerequisite to distributing object code - if Apple claims it needs to do any preparation, it's not actually providing "Corresponding Source";
2. The CS must be available from a network server at no charge, otherwise Apple are wilfully offering something which they know doesn't exist when the other party can reasonably assume that it does exist (because of 1, and because it's explicit in the contract terms);
3. The only acceptable delay is between making the offer and providing "access". The court must then decide how long is reasonable to provide access to an existing and prepared network server. I submit the amount of time it takes to e-mail out a URL as a few seconds, but in Apple's case paragraph 2H of the EULA makes it quite clear how to access the server already, so it is erasonable to assume that what is advertised in the EULA as at that server actually exists there.
Sigh. As far as GPLv3 goes, this is Apple's obligation:
# b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
Apple's not make that offer when it's distributing OS X, because, as you've admitted several times, it doesn't have a network server on which to offer source code at the time of release. Nor is several weeks a reasonable timeframe to fix their dishonesty - it's a breaking of terms and avenue for competitive advantage.
and by definition, if you haven't yet released your software, there can be no users of that binary.
Within minutes after you've released, you will have distributed to users. And the moment you have distributed, you have an obligation under the licence. It's obtuse to the highest order to pretend that you haven't anticipated that your product will have users, or to pretend that your obligations under the licence of the code you distribute aren't of paramount importance.
Apple is in no way violating its obligations by taking "a few weeks" to gather the source code together and release it to the public
Only a court can decide that for sure. But there's a tangible competitive advantage in forcing someone to wait a few weeks for source code, so it's thoroughly and tangibly unreasonable to require it. It's also immoral to give something back on your terms something you took on mutually agreeable terms.
Internet reasonable for distribution is a few hours. Weeks is immoral or pathetic.
I can't believe it! When they release a major revision to their operating system, it sometimes takes them weeks to finalize a new release of the source code? That's... that's...
...licence non-compliance. Apple are welcome to write their own toolchain if they don't like the GPL. Also, I know the first couple of service packs of a new Apple major OS release are awful, but I'm fairly sure they've finalised the source they're using before they build the ISO.
"Don't talk when your mouth is full of toe jam."
I'm bothered by hypocritical Apple's living perfectly up to the 1984 image it mocked while millions of second rate users and developers waste my time and retard the computer landscape through being distracted by shiny junk. You're bothered because some guy puts his foot in his mouth to make a point about, well, you.
MS, meanwhile, are fairly clear about where they stand. The last time they were caught abusing GPL code, they apologised and released the whole product under the GPL. With TFA's news they've shown to act fairly, well, Apple about the extent they want to foster commercial OSS... except MS do it with stuff they've written in the first place.
Apple's behaviour with OpenDarwin was a harbinger of the attitude Jobs has taken to developers since. Now you too can make money shovelling shit into the mouths of idiots as long as we get our unearnt cut and you take it like a man when we cut you off at our whim.
But you do actually get your source releases, right? Like, it might not be on the timeframe you want, but you get them?
I know it's horrible when someone makes a valid criticism of Apple, but if I took something of yours and gave it back to you when/I/ was ready, rather than on the terms we agreed when you took it, would you be happy?
Proving that a juror disobeyed the judge, or indeed that a whole jury based its decision by a manner other than as the judge directed, is fairly hard. Which is good, because it's another check on government abuse, and abuse by a juror is by immediate consequence of the jury system less systematic than abuse by government.
(Of course, every human is biased and prejudiced and puts his own spin on the case; he is a liar or in deep denial if he claims otherwise. The pragmatic aim is for the court and 11 strangers to minimise this.)
It's even worse with Apple. Sometimes you have to wait weeks between an OS X refresh and Darwin source release. And they're bound by the GPL on some of the stuff!
But that Wilde wannabe Fry gets to cheerlead FSF/and/ Apple, so I guess Stallman... wait, why is Stallman showing an unusual pusillanimity with Apple?
...it's impossible to keep archives of old web pages, or for anyone to download and mirror content.
Now jurors are more likely to know that there's information out there that they're "not allowed" to read. Which is fine - as a juror I might do as I'm told to prevent my becoming prejudiced - unless I've just found out that the information has been hidden from everyone, in which case I might consider it my duty to read the information anyway.
That's the whole point: if your motivation isn't saving lives, you would, if you were the guy characterised above, "let me burn if I'm in a fire". Telling me may make you feel better about it, but it's nothing I don't already know. You're not there for the risk and goodness of saving lives, you're there for the career advancement and the cheap women.
Fortunately, many firemen don't think like you. They have a sense of duty, and guys like you just let the side down.
One of my friends became a volunteer firefighter because it was seen as dangerous and attracted females when he flaunted his credentials at bars. It was something he put on his resume to increase his pay.
Thank you - you've reminded me to take fireproofing the house even more seriously. I can't think of anything worse than to be saved by "a volunteer firefighter... because it was seen as dangerous and attracted females... to increase his pay."
Fortunately, a good number of firefighters seem to do it because they like saving lives. The admiration is good but from all sides rather than as merely a sexual kickstart; and "for indirect career advancement" never comes into it.
Support hardware AES (with your AES-NI instruction set, or even copying VIA's Padlock), then they'll actually be usable in devices used where anyone cares a jot about security.
In the left corner we have Adobe, who demonstrates the power of the web enhanced with cross-platform plugins, but makes little effort to cooperate on forming the albeit openly published Flash VM spec and makes a fairly unstable reference implementation (not helped by the lack of process isolation in browsers).
In the right corner we have Apple, whose proposal of the extra-DOM canvas element to troll Adobe (rather than following the example of SVG) further complicated the monolithic monster that is W3C's HTML standard.
In the centre we have consumers, who get to enjoy that there are so many standards to choose from.
The branch of the linden is leafy and Green, The Rhine gives its gold to the sea. But somewhere a glory awaits unseen...
Fascism is dangerous because it can be made so appealing and positive.
I'm not sure whether this makes me happy or sad for characters like Moss. On the one hand, he'd be completely uninterested in the sort of social ritual that was Nazism. On the other, he might be too singlemindedly unaware to realise the implications of working in the basement of the IBM office which processed the census that was key to efficient execution of the Holocaust.
Slashdot Mirror
Very little is "implied" in that contract - if you expect to be able to transfer the funds by Date X, it is put in the contract,
It's like sitting with an obstinate child :-). A house sale often involves a window of time during which funds can be transferred, and the date/time of cleared transfer corresponds to the date/time of transfer of ownership. Thus the particular date/time is implied, not made explicit.
Someone I do work for has recently completed a house purchase with that very term, and it became pertinent because the bank was delaying the clearing of funds. But because the implied date/time of ownership transfer was the very date/time of clearing, he didn't get the keys until precisely the time of day when the funds were confirmed available. This meant paying an extra half day to the firm responsible for moving furniture, but I digress.
in essence "If you don't do this by Date X, seller/purchaser reserves the right to declare this contract void,"
There's no "essence" to "declar[ing] this contract void", sorry. A void contract isn't a contract at all, because it's not enforcable - e.g. my promising to give you anal. A voidable contract is one that /one/ party can unilaterally renege on, e.g. my promising to give you $15 if I were only 15. The "essence" is contract [performance] complete on both sides, i.e. no further obligations.
Don't decorate your tedious argument with attempts to display your plumage of legal experience (congrats, you once bought a house) if you're going to abuse contract law vocabulary so egregiously.
the offer you are making is "to provide"
That language only appears in paragraph 6c), and that option is available, "only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b."
And don't try to turn your error into an "in essence" argument, thanks: learn to interpret what's there rather than simplifying as you see fit.
If the FSF doesn't think that Apple is in violation of the terms of the GPL by taking a few weeks to get all the code posted, doesn't that suggest something to you?
The FSF has better things to worry about, and for some reason takes a fairly lax approach to Apple anyway - probably because they appeared genuinely interested in OSS around the turn of the century, and the FSF can be glacial in their observations of change. But perhaps Brown and Sullivan's recent essays are a refreshing confirmation of their ideals.
I'm done with you. Your tenacity suggested an albeit stubborn willingness to learn, and I have tried to explain in general and specific terms where you have gone wrong with your refusal to read the language of contracts and understand their implications. You keep repeating the same argument, each time making a new assumption or unjustified simplification. Have a nice day!
A proper P&S contract for a home will specify quite clearly the terms of sale, including dates for move-in and transfer / acquisition of title.
Stop pseudo-lawyering. The ownership transfer may be implied to occur when a particular event has occurred, such as cleared transfer of funds. As to whether there are written "consequences" for "failure to deliver", this is just complicating the nature of the required performance in the case of the house sale. For Apple and the house seller, the court still exists to compel performance or enforce collection of damages.
The GPL contains no such provisions, leaving the interpretation of "when" the code must be delivered as a matter for 2 parties (or a court) to determine.
No, it doesn't. The terms of the GPL reinforced by the Apple EULA imply current availability, not future availability.
If you don't like Apple's delay, take them to court and get a ruling against them if you think you can.
I, as an end user, have suffered only a minor breach. I'd claim as damages the loss I've suffered by not having access for n weeks to the source code which was indicated as available in the EULA. This is fairly hard to quantify, and, what with all those silly disclaimers in the EULA, pointless to argue.
The FSF, on the other hand, own the copyright to the code Apple are pirating, and have a good argument for material breach. They're the only ones who can push to require specific performance of Apple.
Canada is in America, air travel happens through Canada, and Canada is strongly influenced by US Customs customs.
It's detrimental to big business, which is pretty much the government's #1 concern.
The GPL *does* simply say you must provide the code
No it doesn't, and I've quoted what it actually says enough times that I've concluded you're being deliberately stolid, you laughable fanboy.
But I look forward to offering you a plot of land with a house on it. I'll enjoy the interest accrued while I take advantage of your lackadaisical reading of contracts to take a reasonable amount of time to build the house after you've paid. It's enough that the bricks already exist - don't get so pissy that they're not yet in the right place!
Some of those Scottish islands would probably be smaller than some of the properties around our area.
Why is some of America so proud of having everything so big, even while it exposes all the problems with huge unmanaged expanses?
when the closest town is a half hour drive away and a fire starts
Not that rural, then. Where I was in Scotland the closest town was about a 45 minute drive away.
you don't wait for the pros,
Well, yes you do. Because they're on call or on stand-by, in a hamlet 5 minutes away. Occasionally first responders might be doing something else, like you kids with your frontier macho nonsense, but they're professionally trained, paid and supplied with equipment. While you're doing initial work, the helicopter's flying in to take people to the island hospital, or the nearest mainland hospital if necessary.
I don't know what you have in Scotland but here we have industrialised farms, some of them with water pumping capacity that many fire departments could only dream about.
Rural farms with their own water sources? Well, I'm fairly sure the island has had them before America was even colonised by Europe. I don't really care to do a penis size comparison of how many gallons and hour a random site can pump, but you can be assured that private supplies would be used by the fire crews if necessary.
You judge the motivations of the people doing the work but you haven't stepped up to the plate yourself.
Really? Or is it just that you're so keen to advertise what little you have done, whereas I am arguing on principle, and wouldn't want to fill the conversation with irrelevant anecdotes about how much of a hero I am.
one of the lowest forms of life, below even politicians.
Does your rural farm have a statue of Ron Paul?
Stop being so defeatist.
They do have the choice to innovate better methods of communicating without having to physically travel. Cheaper and faster than travelling. Produced some cool tech like the Interweb.
Refuse to cross borders which have unreasonable search policies.
If you don't, you're implicitly accepting them. It's your fault.
If that means you have to stay in your country entirely, so be it. Many people survive while staying in their own country.
If you lackeys would give up some of your iToys for a moment and stand up for what's right, even if it means a slight loss of comfort, the government would be forced to change.
Yes, I've stopped travelling by air. Yes, I've stopped travelling to America. I did both frequently and willingly before the post-11/9 intrusions, and loved going to the US. But I think in the long run it'll help both my country and yours if I make a stand, as long as others follow.
First they came for the cryptographers, and you did not speak out...
No, that's not the point. The point is that you claimed: I can't think of anything worse than to be saved
Imagine this isn't a geeky site where everyone claims faux Asperger's and uses that as an excuse to base their argument on an overly literal interpretation. IOW, and I'll try to make this explicit as I would to a slow child, turn on your sarcasm detector and put obnoxious air-quotes around "saved", because saving me is precisely what the fireman characterised above won't be so likely to do if they're in it for wine and women.
I made this quite clear in the next post, but you chose to skip over it, proving your wilful ignorance.
If a fire alert went out, everybody left what they were doing and came, with our own water tanks, our own pumps on our own trucks.
That's a primitive way to deal with fire and rescue, no more developed than pre-Victorian England. How many die during those extra minutes while you transition from what you were already doing and group together? Who's the trained medic? Who flies the helicopter?
Don't tell me these questions are unreasonable in a rural area: they've been answered with a dedicated state-provided service in rural Scottish islands which coordinates part-time, full-time and on-call trained firemen and paramedics who do it because they like to, not because they're scared their shack will crumble.
We didn't need people with some idealised purity of motive, we needed people who would turn up and help.
"As long as you think you're doing it, but don't question motive and resultant performance, efficiency and development." Yep, sounds like US business on the shop floor to a tee, and explains why their manufacturing and service industries are nothing compared to the Far East's. "We just need people" like the government which "just needs more taxes".
I'm AFK.
the GPL simply says "you must make the offer to supply source code,"
The GPL doesn't "simply" say that. It's more specific. You can't simplify a legal document, interpret it in your simplified light, then call the consequences of the words you've ignored "imaginary".
How very 1984 for someone siding with Apple to accuse an FSF advocate of "lawyering"!
FOSS advocates will still wonder why businesses are wary of investing significant efforts into open source work, and "contributing back to the community."
1. Considering its requirements, GPLd/quasi-GPLd software has had more investment than I'd ever have expected from business.
2. Even if it hadn't, much of the community wouldn't care. All they want is code distributed for everyone to use and improve, and the only thing asked for is that you comply with the simple terms.
False on several counts. Read the licence. If you're not distributing source physically, you must provide an offer "to give anyone who possesses the object code [...] access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge."
Where Corresponding Source (CS) is "all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities."
Thus:
1. The CS must exist as a prerequisite to distributing object code - if Apple claims it needs to do any preparation, it's not actually providing "Corresponding Source";
2. The CS must be available from a network server at no charge, otherwise Apple are wilfully offering something which they know doesn't exist when the other party can reasonably assume that it does exist (because of 1, and because it's explicit in the contract terms);
3. The only acceptable delay is between making the offer and providing "access". The court must then decide how long is reasonable to provide access to an existing and prepared network server. I submit the amount of time it takes to e-mail out a URL as a few seconds, but in Apple's case paragraph 2H of the EULA makes it quite clear how to access the server already, so it is erasonable to assume that what is advertised in the EULA as at that server actually exists there.
Sigh. As far as GPLv3 goes, this is Apple's obligation:
# b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
Apple's not make that offer when it's distributing OS X, because, as you've admitted several times, it doesn't have a network server on which to offer source code at the time of release. Nor is several weeks a reasonable timeframe to fix their dishonesty - it's a breaking of terms and avenue for competitive advantage.
and by definition, if you haven't yet released your software, there can be no users of that binary.
Within minutes after you've released, you will have distributed to users. And the moment you have distributed, you have an obligation under the licence. It's obtuse to the highest order to pretend that you haven't anticipated that your product will have users, or to pretend that your obligations under the licence of the code you distribute aren't of paramount importance.
Apple is in no way violating its obligations by taking "a few weeks" to gather the source code together and release it to the public
Only a court can decide that for sure. But there's a tangible competitive advantage in forcing someone to wait a few weeks for source code, so it's thoroughly and tangibly unreasonable to require it. It's also immoral to give something back on your terms something you took on mutually agreeable terms.
Internet reasonable for distribution is a few hours. Weeks is immoral or pathetic.
I can't believe it! When they release a major revision to their operating system, it sometimes takes them weeks to finalize a new release of the source code? That's... that's...
...licence non-compliance. Apple are welcome to write their own toolchain if they don't like the GPL. Also, I know the first couple of service packs of a new Apple major OS release are awful, but I'm fairly sure they've finalised the source they're using before they build the ISO.
"Don't talk when your mouth is full of toe jam."
I'm bothered by hypocritical Apple's living perfectly up to the 1984 image it mocked while millions of second rate users and developers waste my time and retard the computer landscape through being distracted by shiny junk. You're bothered because some guy puts his foot in his mouth to make a point about, well, you.
MS, meanwhile, are fairly clear about where they stand. The last time they were caught abusing GPL code, they apologised and released the whole product under the GPL. With TFA's news they've shown to act fairly, well, Apple about the extent they want to foster commercial OSS... except MS do it with stuff they've written in the first place.
Apple's behaviour with OpenDarwin was a harbinger of the attitude Jobs has taken to developers since. Now you too can make money shovelling shit into the mouths of idiots as long as we get our unearnt cut and you take it like a man when we cut you off at our whim.
But you do actually get your source releases, right? Like, it might not be on the timeframe you want, but you get them?
I know it's horrible when someone makes a valid criticism of Apple, but if I took something of yours and gave it back to you when /I/ was ready, rather than on the terms we agreed when you took it, would you be happy?
Proving that a juror disobeyed the judge, or indeed that a whole jury based its decision by a manner other than as the judge directed, is fairly hard. Which is good, because it's another check on government abuse, and abuse by a juror is by immediate consequence of the jury system less systematic than abuse by government.
(Of course, every human is biased and prejudiced and puts his own spin on the case; he is a liar or in deep denial if he claims otherwise. The pragmatic aim is for the court and 11 strangers to minimise this.)
It's even worse with Apple. Sometimes you have to wait weeks between an OS X refresh and Darwin source release. And they're bound by the GPL on some of the stuff!
But that Wilde wannabe Fry gets to cheerlead FSF /and/ Apple, so I guess Stallman... wait, why is Stallman showing an unusual pusillanimity with Apple?
...it's impossible to keep archives of old web pages, or for anyone to download and mirror content.
Now jurors are more likely to know that there's information out there that they're "not allowed" to read. Which is fine - as a juror I might do as I'm told to prevent my becoming prejudiced - unless I've just found out that the information has been hidden from everyone, in which case I might consider it my duty to read the information anyway.
That's the whole point: if your motivation isn't saving lives, you would, if you were the guy characterised above, "let me burn if I'm in a fire". Telling me may make you feel better about it, but it's nothing I don't already know. You're not there for the risk and goodness of saving lives, you're there for the career advancement and the cheap women.
Fortunately, many firemen don't think like you. They have a sense of duty, and guys like you just let the side down.
One of my friends became a volunteer firefighter because it was seen as dangerous and attracted females when he flaunted his credentials at bars. It was something he put on his resume to increase his pay.
Thank you - you've reminded me to take fireproofing the house even more seriously. I can't think of anything worse than to be saved by "a volunteer firefighter... because it was seen as dangerous and attracted females... to increase his pay."
Fortunately, a good number of firefighters seem to do it because they like saving lives. The admiration is good but from all sides rather than as merely a sexual kickstart; and "for indirect career advancement" never comes into it.
they want their rationality back...
Support hardware AES (with your AES-NI instruction set, or even copying VIA's Padlock), then they'll actually be usable in devices used where anyone cares a jot about security.
In the left corner we have Adobe, who demonstrates the power of the web enhanced with cross-platform plugins, but makes little effort to cooperate on forming the albeit openly published Flash VM spec and makes a fairly unstable reference implementation (not helped by the lack of process isolation in browsers).
In the right corner we have Apple, whose proposal of the extra-DOM canvas element to troll Adobe (rather than following the example of SVG) further complicated the monolithic monster that is W3C's HTML standard.
In the centre we have consumers, who get to enjoy that there are so many standards to choose from.
The branch of the linden is leafy and Green,
The Rhine gives its gold to the sea.
But somewhere a glory awaits unseen...
Fascism is dangerous because it can be made so appealing and positive.
I'm not sure whether this makes me happy or sad for characters like Moss. On the one hand, he'd be completely uninterested in the sort of social ritual that was Nazism. On the other, he might be too singlemindedly unaware to realise the implications of working in the basement of the IBM office which processed the census that was key to efficient execution of the Holocaust.