We wish to further express our opposition to the proposed plans to reverse course and again undergo another reclassification of broadband back into an information service
This is as absurd as when VW claimed the cheat devices in their cars were only installed by a "rogue employee" when later it came out that the CEO was fully aware of it.
So just more CEO scapegoating to dodge responsibility when anything goes wrong? They're always the sole reason for a company's succcesses yet are always completely in-the-dark for anything negative.
Windows 7 was released in October 2009, which makes it almost 8.
Maybe if you've never updated it in those 8 years. On the other hand, my version of Windows 7 is running code that was just released probably only weeks ago.
By that time scale, Win7 is nearing the end of it's life.
Nope, it will continue to get security updates until 2020.
Nowhere in Chris' post confirms that they weren't open to GPL licensing LLVM. In fact, it stated the opposite if the FSF had been willing to merge GCC and LLVM. The reason it never happened was the FSF refused not because Apple was against GPLing LLVM.
Maybe that was true initially but Chris kept going on:
If people are seriously in favor of LLVM being a long-term part of GCC, I personally believe that the LLVM community would agree to assign the copyright of LLVM itself to the FSF and we can work through these details.
Sure, it might not have but Chris kept talking about doing a full copyright assignment if the community agreed.
If people are seriously in favor of LLVM being a long-term part of GCC, I personally believe that the LLVM community would agree to assign the copyright of LLVM itself to the FSF and we can work through these details.
Either way, the point of my post was that Apple's motives for hiring Chris had nothing to do with the ridiculous claims fubarr made. If Apple was all for preventing LLVM from going GPL why would their own employee in an official capacity be talking about a possible assignment of LLVM's copyright to the FSF. The copyright assignment would have allowed the FSF to freely relicense it as they pleased.
Slashdot Mirror
Even worse than that is they expect us to believe that they can securely escrow master keys to break all encryption. What a bunch of jokers.
Nice backpedalling and goalpost shifting.
It's more than the unnamed 19 ISPs that Ajit Pai was using as justification for rolling back the classification.
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_pub...
Except these companies don't have high-paid lobbyists so he's unlikely to care.
Of course not, that's why the letter also says:
We wish to further express our opposition to the proposed plans to reverse course and again undergo another reclassification of broadband back into an information service
Want to try again?
This is as absurd as when VW claimed the cheat devices in their cars were only installed by a "rogue employee" when later it came out that the CEO was fully aware of it.
So just more CEO scapegoating to dodge responsibility when anything goes wrong? They're always the sole reason for a company's succcesses yet are always completely in-the-dark for anything negative.
Adding HBO on Comcast only costs $10 like pretty much every other cable company.
That's Comcastic!
Checked the Charlie Hebdo attackers and those where born in France, but by Algerian parents. Doesn't really make things better
Translation: When evidence disagrees with you you'll dismiss. Gotta keep the cognitive dissonance going.
And what incentive did they have to care about Ubuntu Phones? It had less marketshare than BB10 and Windows.
So it sounds like you've reorganized the deck chairs and not much else.
No, you actually couldn't. You would be sued and likely lose.
Startups don't employ people? Since when?
I don't pay MS and still get updates for my Windows 7 install.
Windows 7 was released in October 2009, which makes it almost 8.
Maybe if you've never updated it in those 8 years. On the other hand, my version of Windows 7 is running code that was just released probably only weeks ago.
By that time scale, Win7 is nearing the end of it's life.
Nope, it will continue to get security updates until 2020.
free shipping i don't have to pay $100 a year for
"Free" shipping? You're joking, right? The cost of shipping is baked into the price of what you're buying.
Nowhere in Chris' post confirms that they weren't open to GPL licensing LLVM. In fact, it stated the opposite if the FSF had been willing to merge GCC and LLVM. The reason it never happened was the FSF refused not because Apple was against GPLing LLVM.
The thing he was willing to GPL was not the LLVM
Initially, yes. But as I quoted he was talking about a full copyright assignment which would have allowed the FSF to relicense it as they please.
They promised a complete asaignment, but people usually do not hold their promises, especially in business setting.
No, he said the LLVM would likely be willing to do a full assignment if the GCC people agreed to a merge.
I'm right, and you are not right.
Are you 2 years old?
Do you have the attention span of a gnat? The very next sentence would have answered your question before you asked it looking stupid.
To add to my other post.
Maybe that was true initially but Chris kept going on:
If people are seriously in favor of LLVM being a long-term part of GCC, I personally believe that the LLVM community would agree to assign the copyright of LLVM itself to the FSF and we can work through these details.
Sure, it might not have but Chris kept talking about doing a full copyright assignment if the community agreed.
If people are seriously in favor of LLVM being a long-term part of GCC, I personally believe that the LLVM community would agree to assign the copyright of LLVM itself to the FSF and we can work through these details.
Either way, the point of my post was that Apple's motives for hiring Chris had nothing to do with the ridiculous claims fubarr made. If Apple was all for preventing LLVM from going GPL why would their own employee in an official capacity be talking about a possible assignment of LLVM's copyright to the FSF. The copyright assignment would have allowed the FSF to freely relicense it as they pleased.
Keep shifting the goalposts.
My quote explicitly mentioned the GPL. Are you illiterate?
That would be false. It was after hiring him that Apple was willing to re license LLVM as GPL to get it integrated into GCC.
The patch I'm working on is GPL licensed and copyright will be assigned to the FSF under the standard Apple copyright assignment.
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/200...