Microsoft has always had a more open ecosystem for their OS both on the desktop and on phones than apple ever was. It's just sad they went more closed with wp7 since.winmo was so open (both in respects to installing anything you wanted and in using a huge variety of languages to create apps).
You can relicense the code to a newer version of the GPL as long as it has the "or any later version" clause and since and the LGPLv2.1 allows you to relicense it as GPL. Read the bottom of this page. The FSF talks about in which directions you can relicense the code.
And, yes, this is replacing the original license with the upgraded license. This of course does not change the fact that the previously licensed code was a previous version and that isn't revoked.
So even though the source is closed it's not really "closed" because you know the basics about how it works? The mental gymnastics you Google fanbois go through to defend them art all costs is hilarious.
If build time is that big of your total time spent developing then you are most likely creating only trivial toy apps. Secondly I can configure and build the entire Qt codebase on a 3.5 year old laptop on Windows in less than 30 mins and I imagine it it's far larger and more complex than the shit you're churning out. In conclusion, you're doing it wrong.
Bring ideas in your head as well as comments like "Yeah, we tried that direction, but came up against issues with...." are certainly not easy to prove.
Keep telling yourself that.
Besides, Intel isn't going to be stupid enough to try to get schematics and diagrams. It's much more about knowing long term plans, where companies are steering. What ideas they are looking to develop.
Trade secrets involve more than just schematics and diagrams. Long term plans are also trade secrets and if you think Intel is dumb enough to try that, you are an idiot. Intel has itself gone after people who have left them to go to AMD for trying to steal trade secrets. They aren't going to open themselves up to similar lawsuits. They'll throw that employee to the wolves and let them enjoy the lawsuit from AMD.
In our case, it's about finding as much as is possible about how their supply chain differs from ours. What details they take into account in their forecasting models, things like that. Half the value is simply seeing our issues from a completely different angle, then having our own ideas on how to best come up with solutions. Getting someone to prove that in a court of law? Good luck.
Except that people have been successfully prosecuted for doing that. But hey, go ahead and try it. I'm sure you'll love losing that lawsuit as you get thrown under the bus.
So then they'll just slap them on to people who don't live in California. Mark Langsdorf, for example, worked for the Austin TX branch so California law has no jurisdiction there.
I am sure that there are many companies out there who would be more than happy to hire these folks to gain some insight into what plans are for the next few years from AMD.
I'm sure they'll also love the lawsuit from AMD for breaking trade secret laws. If the company is smart they'll give up any employee attempting to do so and let them get the lawsuit instead.
'You've got to give IBM a lot of credit...Ten years ago, the notion that open source might be the best way for software vendors to collaborate was really a novel idea... Eclipse demonstrated the advantages of collaboration in open source, even amongst fierce competitors.'
Apache was showing this 5 years before Eclipse came out.
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft has always had a more open ecosystem for their OS both on the desktop and on phones than apple ever was. It's just sad they went more closed with wp7 since.winmo was so open (both in respects to installing anything you wanted and in using a huge variety of languages to create apps).
You can relicense the code to a newer version of the GPL as long as it has the "or any later version" clause and since and the LGPLv2.1 allows you to relicense it as GPL. Read the bottom of this page. The FSF talks about in which directions you can relicense the code.
And, yes, this is replacing the original license with the upgraded license. This of course does not change the fact that the previously licensed code was a previous version and that isn't revoked.
Yes, the FSF even talks about upgrading the licenses. Such as being able to upgrade LGPLv2.1 code to GPLv2 or later or GPLv3 or later, etc.
I didn't say you could revoke the original license, but you can upgrade it.
Because you think someone wouldn't have said anything by now if they had?
So even though the source is closed it's not really "closed" because you know the basics about how it works? The mental gymnastics you Google fanbois go through to defend them art all costs is hilarious.
produced notoriously goofy and spam-prone results.
So that's who Google has between copying lately with their own spam-filled results.
No it doesn't. You can always reinstall the root cert if you want.
Expensive, bloated and chock full of unnecessary middleware and abstraction layers? That's usually what "enterprise software" means.
I hate to piss on your trolling but this CA is not a trusted authority in iOS.
Because you want to what? He wants their certificates revoked he didn't want to install them. Is your reading comprehension that poor?
Why would they install the very certificates they want revoked?
If build time is that big of your total time spent developing then you are most likely creating only trivial toy apps. Secondly I can configure and build the entire Qt codebase on a 3.5 year old laptop on Windows in less than 30 mins and I imagine it it's far larger and more complex than the shit you're churning out. In conclusion, you're doing it wrong.
Notice how all his employment dates end at November, 2011? If he was still employed it would say "Present" instead.
Bring ideas in your head as well as comments like "Yeah, we tried that direction, but came up against issues with ...." are certainly not easy to prove.
Keep telling yourself that.
Besides, Intel isn't going to be stupid enough to try to get schematics and diagrams. It's much more about knowing long term plans, where companies are steering. What ideas they are looking to develop.
Trade secrets involve more than just schematics and diagrams. Long term plans are also trade secrets and if you think Intel is dumb enough to try that, you are an idiot. Intel has itself gone after people who have left them to go to AMD for trying to steal trade secrets. They aren't going to open themselves up to similar lawsuits. They'll throw that employee to the wolves and let them enjoy the lawsuit from AMD.
In our case, it's about finding as much as is possible about how their supply chain differs from ours. What details they take into account in their forecasting models, things like that. Half the value is simply seeing our issues from a completely different angle, then having our own ideas on how to best come up with solutions. Getting someone to prove that in a court of law? Good luck.
Except that people have been successfully prosecuted for doing that. But hey, go ahead and try it. I'm sure you'll love losing that lawsuit as you get thrown under the bus.
Hey look, another stupid post from Joe Dragon!
Amd give alot more MB / chipset choice then intel.
Yeah, because the 396 different Intel desktop motherboards to choose from on Newegg makes it impossible to have any choice.
So then they'll just slap them on to people who don't live in California. Mark Langsdorf, for example, worked for the Austin TX branch so California law has no jurisdiction there.
Great, but tons of AMD employees both don't reside in California nor in the US..
I am sure that there are many companies out there who would be more than happy to hire these folks to gain some insight into what plans are for the next few years from AMD.
I'm sure they'll also love the lawsuit from AMD for breaking trade secret laws. If the company is smart they'll give up any employee attempting to do so and let them get the lawsuit instead.
'You've got to give IBM a lot of credit...Ten years ago, the notion that open source might be the best way for software vendors to collaborate was really a novel idea... Eclipse demonstrated the advantages of collaboration in open source, even amongst fierce competitors.'
Apache was showing this 5 years before Eclipse came out.
So what? Why do you care? Is your life that pathetic that you really get so worked up that someone doesn't like the same thing as you?
Or, you know, people have different tastes and opinions from you? No, can't be. It has to be just myths and FUD, right?
Good for you? Not everyone agrees, though.
Why do we have to fight change every step of the way?
Because not all change is good?