Your comment is just absurd. Nowhere is it hinted that Motorola is shooting themselves in the foot in that way.
They're allegedly making their own OS, by acquisition and improvement. It'll be a Linux, but with Moto's own special spin. Although I'd like to see Android brutally crush iOS, I think this is wise. Always, ALWAYS have a plan B. A company the size of Moto Mobility should have several options in development.
That isn't what happens with bankruptcy any more. These days the case stays tied up in the courts until the lawyers and hangers-on have consumed every cent - and then some. The creditors get nothing - not even their own legal fees and expenses.
Hey, bud. You were the one polluting the other thread that this one debunks with your Linus quotes. How about an "oops, my bad"? Only a couple of days ago you were banging this FUD drum pretty hard.
Like the power to declare war, the Constitution delegates from the people to the Congress the power to grant patents, or specifically "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;".
And like the power to declare war, the Constitution does not require that Congress use this power. At all. The US Constitution does not confer a right to patents and copyrights for authors and inventors.
Here's the clear line: You cannot even be bothered to log in to slashdot to question where the line is. If you thought this problem was "huge" and important, you would tell us who you are to think that so as to lend some of your credibility to the question. But you can't be bothered to do that. So it's a whiff. A feint. A ghost of a ghost. It's the bogeyman under the bed that we all know isn't there. Every single one of you tards that want to push this ghost in this thread are posting AC. That tells us what we need to know. You're full of shit.
A careful analysis of AC posts will tell us who's shit your full of. You know that, right? Did you think nobody was going to do that? You must be new here.
The people who worry about money don't know what art is and cannot make good art - so they make good art critics. A more worthless use of human effort cannot be found. With a half-century of hindsight, then they buy in after the artist is dead.
AT&T isn't the legacy phone company that it once was. It's now a brand. The company that bought the brand, SBC Communications, presumably thought that this was a good brand to buy and has nothing to do with the legacy. Personally I'd have gone with a new brand like, "Antichrist, Inc", as a brand that didn't have the customer service baggage of AT&T and yet expressed the desire to screw every contract holder, but that's just me. Obviously SBC Inc wanted to own the brand associated with the motto "We don't have to care. We're the phone company. They could have taken it in a new and different direction, but apparently abusing your customers is a key metric to profitability.
It would be newsworthy if IBM managed to do business in China without bribery. Cash is the lubricant that greases the wheels of business in Brazil, Russia, India and China. And I put it like that because these nations are referred to as "BRIC", though there are many other minor markets where approvals to do anything cannot be had without some lube in the form of a grocery bag full of soft folding cash. There's a reason why the US airlifted many pallets of hundred dollar bills into Iraq, Afganistan, and other current ports of interest, and now cannot account for where they went, to the sum of billions of dollars. When in Rome...
You know how C preprocessor works, right? Ever seen the output of cpp?
I've written one. Of course I know how they work. What I don't know is why you think this has any bearing.
What the guy is saying (not Mueller, the other one) is not that a lawsuit is imminent, but rather that there is a potential for it. If push comes to shove, it'll be up to lawyers to interpret what's copyrightable and what's not, and how a derived work is defined - and lawyers are notoriously bad at grasping technical common sense and established standards.
We are beset by lawyers on every front. They know no reason, no logic, no law. They sue everything that moves, every thing that is profitable. When the revolution comes, The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
But what fool would set his course or his hopes on some lawyer-proof plan? There is no such thing. Anybody claiming he can steer you safely through a minefield of lawyers is a charlatan looking to fleece you - and probably a lawyer himself as well.
Your objections are BS. Now what's your motivation?
Oh, God you're a 'tard. Macros don't "expand into" code, except by reference, which is allowed. Inline functions aren't in these headers, nor would they be in any good code.
By promoting this FUD you've destroyed any credibility you had here. You know that, right? This is your sharp knees moment. It's sad to see you go in this way. You were good at this once upon a time. You had promise. I'll miss you. Gather your stuff before you go home today, ok? Otherwise you might not ever see it again.
For every tyrant that's ruled for thirty years there are thousands of businessmen under him who have no trade with tyrrany. They have built their business in the framework they know, and have excelled. They are honest men who do their work and go home at night to their families, to love their kids as we do.
To achieve social change in this space, we have to kill them. Let's go! Who's for it?
The proper way to include other people's headers in your project is by reference. You include the kernel source in your search path and
#include <errno.h>
Somewhere in the docs is the comment:// Requires kernel headers in the search path.
This is the proper way because it makes your app more portable, but it does include the risk that your reference may become undefined or the headers may - in some bizarre case - become incompatible with your project. It's still the right way, and the wrong way is to fold the headers into your project. This is what Linus was saying, and Linus is right. Linus is almost always right. That doesn't mean Linus is going to come after you with lawyers if you don't do it his way. That's pretty much the antithesis of how Linus works. Linus has an Android phone, and he likes it.
Headers are... headers. They don't contain code. They're a set of factual definitions, the copyrighting of which is proscribed. Nobody except SCO is going to get pissy about headers. Headers are API. They're meant to be used to interface with the code, and only an idiot would object to them being used for that. To object to that would be to eliminate the utility of your library. There is nobody trying to get pissy about headers except SCO and they're now bankrupt to the point of being irrelevant, and other Microsoft proxies. I suppose Oracle could get in this game if they want to be bankrupt too.
But yes, header files by reference rather than folding them in is the preferred way.
I'm in this thread against my better judgement. "Florian" and/or "Meuller" pretty much set me off as much as the terms "Enderle" and "O'Gara" do. We know these people are marketing mouthpieces for a corporate entity that doesn't care for facts or reality, but only for altering how people think to suit them. The editors of the fools who quote them need to be educated. I would be thankful if you would educate them now.
Slashdot Mirror
Your comment is just absurd. Nowhere is it hinted that Motorola is shooting themselves in the foot in that way.
They're allegedly making their own OS, by acquisition and improvement. It'll be a Linux, but with Moto's own special spin. Although I'd like to see Android brutally crush iOS, I think this is wise. Always, ALWAYS have a plan B. A company the size of Moto Mobility should have several options in development.
But Windows Phone? No. That would just be dumb.
That isn't what happens with bankruptcy any more. These days the case stays tied up in the courts until the lawyers and hangers-on have consumed every cent - and then some. The creditors get nothing - not even their own legal fees and expenses.
You're right. I missed that. Sorry.
Thanks for the laugh. That was really cute.
Linus is the authority. You guys just don't give up your FUD no matter how irrational it is, do you?
Hey, bud. You were the one polluting the other thread that this one debunks with your Linus quotes. How about an "oops, my bad"? Only a couple of days ago you were banging this FUD drum pretty hard.
Like the power to declare war, the Constitution delegates from the people to the Congress the power to grant patents, or specifically "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;".
And like the power to declare war, the Constitution does not require that Congress use this power. At all. The US Constitution does not confer a right to patents and copyrights for authors and inventors.
If you knew how much I admire your cromulence, you would not be so hateful. I want to have your effigies.
Here's the clear line: You cannot even be bothered to log in to slashdot to question where the line is. If you thought this problem was "huge" and important, you would tell us who you are to think that so as to lend some of your credibility to the question. But you can't be bothered to do that. So it's a whiff. A feint. A ghost of a ghost. It's the bogeyman under the bed that we all know isn't there. Every single one of you tards that want to push this ghost in this thread are posting AC. That tells us what we need to know. You're full of shit.
A careful analysis of AC posts will tell us who's shit your full of. You know that, right? Did you think nobody was going to do that? You must be new here.
Are we onto humanism as relates to the GPL now? I thought that was thoroughly covered in 1998.
Your freckles give you character.
Kristopeit = enlightened bot.
You might wander in a field of clover.
The people who worry about money don't know what art is and cannot make good art - so they make good art critics. A more worthless use of human effort cannot be found. With a half-century of hindsight, then they buy in after the artist is dead.
Your mum smells of elderberries.
Analysing the threads this bot posts in does yield some interesting information about the purpose for his design. My money has MSRC.
AT&T isn't the legacy phone company that it once was. It's now a brand. The company that bought the brand, SBC Communications, presumably thought that this was a good brand to buy and has nothing to do with the legacy. Personally I'd have gone with a new brand like, "Antichrist, Inc", as a brand that didn't have the customer service baggage of AT&T and yet expressed the desire to screw every contract holder, but that's just me. Obviously SBC Inc wanted to own the brand associated with the motto "We don't have to care. We're the phone company. They could have taken it in a new and different direction, but apparently abusing your customers is a key metric to profitability.
It would be newsworthy if IBM managed to do business in China without bribery. Cash is the lubricant that greases the wheels of business in Brazil, Russia, India and China. And I put it like that because these nations are referred to as "BRIC", though there are many other minor markets where approvals to do anything cannot be had without some lube in the form of a grocery bag full of soft folding cash. There's a reason why the US airlifted many pallets of hundred dollar bills into Iraq, Afganistan, and other current ports of interest, and now cannot account for where they went, to the sum of billions of dollars. When in Rome...
Has anybody else noticed that all of these FUD merchants are anonymous cowards? How many accounts do they have?
There is, however, art in making free art.
You know how C preprocessor works, right? Ever seen the output of cpp?
I've written one. Of course I know how they work. What I don't know is why you think this has any bearing.
What the guy is saying (not Mueller, the other one) is not that a lawsuit is imminent, but rather that there is a potential for it. If push comes to shove, it'll be up to lawyers to interpret what's copyrightable and what's not, and how a derived work is defined - and lawyers are notoriously bad at grasping technical common sense and established standards.
We are beset by lawyers on every front. They know no reason, no logic, no law. They sue everything that moves, every thing that is profitable. When the revolution comes, The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
But what fool would set his course or his hopes on some lawyer-proof plan? There is no such thing. Anybody claiming he can steer you safely through a minefield of lawyers is a charlatan looking to fleece you - and probably a lawyer himself as well.
Your objections are BS. Now what's your motivation?
Oh, God you're a 'tard. Macros don't "expand into" code, except by reference, which is allowed. Inline functions aren't in these headers, nor would they be in any good code.
By promoting this FUD you've destroyed any credibility you had here. You know that, right? This is your sharp knees moment. It's sad to see you go in this way. You were good at this once upon a time. You had promise. I'll miss you. Gather your stuff before you go home today, ok? Otherwise you might not ever see it again.
For every tyrant that's ruled for thirty years there are thousands of businessmen under him who have no trade with tyrrany. They have built their business in the framework they know, and have excelled. They are honest men who do their work and go home at night to their families, to love their kids as we do.
To achieve social change in this space, we have to kill them. Let's go! Who's for it?
He did a lot of other good stuff though. Let's not remember him on the spike of this one mistake.
The proper way to include other people's headers in your project is by reference. You include the kernel source in your search path and
#include <errno.h>
Somewhere in the docs is the comment: // Requires kernel headers in the search path.
This is the proper way because it makes your app more portable, but it does include the risk that your reference may become undefined or the headers may - in some bizarre case - become incompatible with your project. It's still the right way, and the wrong way is to fold the headers into your project. This is what Linus was saying, and Linus is right. Linus is almost always right. That doesn't mean Linus is going to come after you with lawyers if you don't do it his way. That's pretty much the antithesis of how Linus works. Linus has an Android phone, and he likes it.
Headers are... headers. They don't contain code. They're a set of factual definitions, the copyrighting of which is proscribed. Nobody except SCO is going to get pissy about headers. Headers are API. They're meant to be used to interface with the code, and only an idiot would object to them being used for that. To object to that would be to eliminate the utility of your library. There is nobody trying to get pissy about headers except SCO and they're now bankrupt to the point of being irrelevant, and other Microsoft proxies. I suppose Oracle could get in this game if they want to be bankrupt too.
But yes, header files by reference rather than folding them in is the preferred way.
I'm in this thread against my better judgement. "Florian" and/or "Meuller" pretty much set me off as much as the terms "Enderle" and "O'Gara" do. We know these people are marketing mouthpieces for a corporate entity that doesn't care for facts or reality, but only for altering how people think to suit them. The editors of the fools who quote them need to be educated. I would be thankful if you would educate them now.