You agree to a binding contract when you signup for Facebook.
The ToS is part of a contract you've agreed to with facebook since you signed up.
In order to hand out your password, you have to breach your contract, which is illegal. You have to break the law to share your password even if it isn't directly illegal, it is indirectly.
The smart thing for an employer to do would be to ask, then not hire anyone who gives the password. Or send them for special training about never sharing passwords. An employee who gives out passwords is a major security threat.
Anyone who uses Facebook is a security threat, they've already demonstrated they don't understand security or privacy or how it can be abused, nor do they pay attention to the monthly way that Facebook leaks data 'accidently' on purpose when it adds new 'features for privacy' or whatever excuse they are up to this week that would have told them not to use Facebook.
Using Facebook shows a significant lack of judgement and ignorance, it is possible that its not ignorance and just plain stupidity, but you should assume ignorance to start with.
Actually, due to a previous online comment, I already have to go through extra security at the airport every time I fly anyway. Shrug, now I just say what ever the fuck I want and don't worry about it:)
As for communism... I think both communism and socialism are great ideas in THEORY, but due to human nature/instinct they can not be implemented as a practical form of government as they leave too much room for human failures to ruin them. The only form of government that can work with humans in their current state of evolution is one where the people are constantly fighting back and keeping it in check. Basically we use our faults to our advantage rather than ignoring them or pretending they don't exist.
I use Facebook to determine the intelligence level of the person I'm dealing with.
If you have a Facebook account, you've already failed my job interview. You can't be trusted to make intelligent decisions with data, so you don't need to work at this organization.
So I ask for a Facebook login, but I never look, the only correct answer is 'i don't have one'
doing research on alternate fuels, just so they can patent them and then bury the technology?
This has got to be the WORST way possible to abuse the patent system, whose core tenant is to encourage innovation. I've heard of companies buying and then burying things, but to actually R&D them and THEN bury them? wow.
Yea, its like someone made it up its so unbelievable...
Oh wait... if you read the article... you'll find out that it too unbelievable to be true and is in fact just a lie in the summary.
The actual article shows that the company that is suing 'the little guy' is a company setup in order to actually utilize the patent to make fuel... not sit on it and kill it so no one else can use it... and that the company suing is far further along in the process and much closer to market.
The higher the price of traditional fuels, the more interest there'll be in biofuels.
Lets also not forget that fuel is not what most oil gets used for. Oil, its products AND its byproducts are used in more or less everything in the modern world.
Forget fuel. Plastics use far more of the oil pulled out of the ground than all of the fuels combined.
Completely replace oil as a fuel with something completely renewable and easy to get, and oil STILL is in demand... that is as long as you want about 99% of the things in your life to stay as they are.
Fuel is really the least of our concerns for oil, we've already got alternatives, they just aren't as cheap right now, we don't really have viable alternatives for many of the other uses of oil.
Wha ??? Did you think anyone is going to spend millions to billions doing the research for a pat on the head and a thanks well done ?
Even if they couldn't patent it they could still produce the biofuel and continue profiting from it. Hell, if they were doing the research they'd be the experts in the area and thus could sell services to other companies. And if they were the experts in the area that'd also mean they'd most likely still be the first one to start actually monetizing their research.
You know, they didn't patent regular gasoline either and well, it DOES indeed look like they've been profiting from it for years even without patents so even that angle is well covered.
So yeah.. sorry for tearing your argument to shreds.
Being an expert in the area means jack shit when one guy can take all that knowledge out the door with him to your competition, and your competition is more than willing to pay handsomely for that person to do so.
Define 'patent gasoline'... actually, their probably was at one point, and there are beyond any doubt patents on what you burn in your car today. There are process patents, patents on the chemical additives, patents on the deep water extraction technics, patents on the transport pipelines that get it from the fields to the refineries... So while their may not be a patent on 'gasoline', thats not what comes out of the pump either so it really doesn't matter.
Clearly, when a patent is being used to kill an industry, the value of the industry is thus zero. Giving nothing to the patent troll sounds like market value compensation to me...
But it may generate profit for the patent holder in another industry, which taking the patent away would result in them losing money, and thus... they would need to be compensated for that loss instead.
Its really not hard to understand and is absolutely silly that you look at it as if such a simplistic view of the problem would actually fly in the face of any sane person.
A lot of people have the opinion that the ACLU is only about shutting down the speech of Christians/Whites/Men/*insert majority group here.* I think this case proves that not to be the case
Why exactly? They can still be anti-majority and still support things that are otherwise good. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I don't think the ACLU goes after majority groups, but they certainly go after somethings that clearly they shouldn't be, but thats the double edge sword of an organization like the ACLU, their viewpoint of civil liberties is different than mine. So when they are for something I agree with, I support them and make others aware of their fight, and when they are going off on some wildly retarded tangent like they so regularly do, I make sure people understand why I think its silly or wrong.
The same for the EFF, though I must admit the EFF is generally more aligned with my own opinions so its rarer that I disagree with the EFF but it certainly has happened.
One of the things all Americans (I don't want to speak for other countries though its certainly the same in some others) need to remember is that we all don't have to agree on everything. The only thing we all REALLY need to agree with is that its okay for others to have a differing opinion, and its okay for them to do things we don't really agree with as long as they aren't really bothering or harming anyone else. And that is just about where everyone fails, myself included. Its not always easy to accept someone else's opinion, viewpoint or way of doing things.
Why the fuck do you make me throw it onto a USB drive and copy it manually?
You paid for a license and a download, you got both. You didn't pay for a license and unlimited downloads in case you lost it. They told you this when you agreed to the terms, and they aren't really unreasonable. They probably should offer some sort of re-download service at a significantly reduced rate though, but as we've seen, Apple has pushed rather hard to get to where it is now without requiring DRM on everything.
However, as far as your statement, they did provide an entirely reasonable means of replacement, make a backup copy. Thats what you want to copy DVDs and CDs for ISN'T IT? not to pirate them but to back them up? You can do that and are encouraged to do so with iTunes... now you want them to also fix the fact that you're irresponsible and lost the originals? I'm sorry, thats just not how the world works, thank god. Sometimes you actually have to take some personal responsibility for your possessions and stop expecting someone else to take care of you.
It's not like you don't restrict me to five computers anyway. Be more like Steam.
You mean you want them to make it more restrictive? Steam allows you to use it on one instance at a time if you are online, not 5. Try playing HL2 on 5 machines all connected to the net with steam... then when 4 or all of them are unable to play, you'll be rather happy that you can at least still listen to your itunes library.
Theoretically PowerDVD can be integrated with the windows Media Center and used with an MCE remote. I've yet to try it though, mostly because I don't have a working IR receiver for Win7, and the PC is nicely connected via HDMI to the TV, and DVI to my normal desktop monitors.
That only works for local playback and does you no good for media center extenders.
I have one Win7 PC running media center and 4 xboxes through-out the house acting as extenders for actual display, the Win7PC sits in my networking closet.
I don't have a problem with that. I rip all my BluRay films as soon as they arrive. I don't even have a stand-alone player for this kind of reason.
If they ever change things so I can't rip my movies I'll just stop buying them completely.
I still get surprised everytime I see someone on Slashdot buying disks.
I'm not saying you should be pirating, but personally I decided after the HDDVD/Bluray bullshit that neither format was the winner because both were trying to tie me down to their crap for another 10 years and just decided the intelligent thing to do would be to not give the studios any more money for things provided to me the way they want rather than the way I want for no reason other than it makes their pockets fatter.
I believe there is a time and place for proprietary software, I'm not an OSS zealot, though I fully approve of OSS, contribute too and release almost all of my own work under a BSD license, I also work as a developer of proprietary software... but what I do not believe in is proprietary formats for data, it does no one any good long term. I've moved our own software to 'open' formats (they aren't really open imho as they aren't documented publically in anyway, but its just easy to figure out XML files and work with our server communications) because its easier for US too. Yes, someone MIGHT take our format and do a better job than we do, but... its not something I'm afraid of, I'll just make ours better and sell our service because it will be the better service.
Lets hope these fuckers and their proprietary DRM encrusted crap dies a quick and horrible death by people realizing how wrong this sort of shit is.
As a safari user, pretty much everything, but I'm so used to slashdot not working right that I didn't notice!
Note to slashdot site maker dude: YOU SUCK AT HTML, CSS AND JAVASCRIPT, STOP FUCKING TRYING TO MAKE IT SO GOD DAMN COMPLEX, IT IS CLEARLY WELL OUTSIDE YOUR ABILITIES.
I couldn't make a site like slashdot work in every browser so you know what I did at my company? Fucking hired someone who could.
1) They complied with orders to shut down the routers because AK-74's were pointed at them.
2) They complied with orders to shut down the routers because they believed that would in fact aid the rebellion.
You decide.
OR
3) The Internet wasn't nearly as insturemental in the process as everyone is making it out to be and the truth of the matter the peoples actions... not text messages, tweets, and walls mosts overthrew the government.
You live in a really fucked up haze if you think twitter or facebook had anything to do with it other than letting people outside the area know what was going on.
>>>"I will obey, because the government will jail or possibly kill me and my family if I don't".
And this is different from refusing a search in the EU or US - how?
I'm not sure what fucking world you live in, but no one in the EU or US has been killed recently for telling the TSA to go fuck themselves. Get some fucking perspective, the EU and US are NOTHING like that.
Someone should ship you off to one of these places so you actually understand what real suffering is. And now, 'they turned off my internetz' is not fucking suffering, which no one has ever done to you anyway.
Typically MS buys out the developers before taking over the project and employees them to continue working on it. There are plenty of examples of this out there, sysinternals is the first that comes to mind but thats just one.
but it doesn't say you can't sell software which includes proprietary code you stole and don't allow redistribution of.
It doesn't have to say it, thats covered by law, not license agreements and they can't change that law regardless.
They don't need to state that you aren't allowed to kill your wife because its already illegal to kill your wife, just like it is to steal and redistribute source code you are not authorized to do so.
It's not that they feel they are not able to comply with GPL, they don't want to.
Okay, they don't want to, that really doesn't change anything does it?
GPL places additional requirements that go against what MS wants to do, so MS is evil? Why doesn't GPL change itself to be compatible with the MS and Apple stores? OH WAIT, it did change recently... and went the opposite direction, making it impossible to use in such environments.
I guess I'm evil because I won't let GPL software anywhere near my company. Love my FreeBSD though, and I contribute patches to several BSD licensed projects.
I will never however, redistribute or contribute to a GPL project, so I must be an evil bastard by your definition.
Interestingly enough, though, another person could conceivably download that code and make changes to it and then claim that Apple is violating the gpl
No, you can't. The changed code is not on the app store, so the author of the new code has no claim to whats on the app store, nor does the author of the changed code have any right to say how the original code is used/distributed, how the author chooses to license it or anything else about it. GPL does not give you the right to tell someone else what to do with their code, it only allows you to redistribute, change, and use code that has been given to you. Nothing more, it is not all inclusive. You still don't get to tell someone else what to do.
You aren't entitled to anything, stop acting like you are.
The LGPL and BSD licenses are not incompatible with app stores, but MS has banned them all*
The BSD license is not incompatible and is in fact used with MANY software packages on the Apple app store. Apple is fully aware of it. I know they are, I've told them every single time I've submitted a new App.
Neither is it incompatible with the MS store for that matter, but hey, why stop spreading the FUD when you're on a roll, eh?
The only problem is with GPL and GPL-like licenses which prevent you from adding any other restrictions. This is an intentional feature of GPL.
The problem with OSS license is that they will, in general, prevent companies like MS from taking the software, putting a copyright on it
Licensing has nothing to do with copyright. No one can take your copyright regardless of license. MS can't take and claim copyright on code under any license unless the copyright owner transfers the copyright to MS specifically.
Your statement is pure FUD. Even BSD or Public Domain software can not have its copyright changed, the license and the copyright are entirely 100% unrelated and your attempt to confuse the two shows that either you are ignorant of both copyright and licensing or just trying to spread FUD.
Eitherway, the statement is 100% false in everyway, you should do some research into what Copyright actually is.
Pretty much this seems to a clear means to prevent any software that competes with MS from entering the store, since almost all such software is OSS.
I think perhaps you should take your head out of the sand, thats just a completely ignorant statement indicating you have no clue what the Windows software landscape looks like and you assume the OSS is something MS is afraid of in that aspect. The reality of it is, OSS presents little threat to MS on the desktop as there has yet to be an OSS package for a Windows OS of any size that didn't look like it was written in the 70s by a bunch of guys with no clue what the end user actually wanted. You may not care that it looks antiquated but the majority of the public does, that alone keeps OSS down, MS doesn't have to work much harder after that.
I'm sure I'll get marked a troll, but that won't change anything, the same reasons will still exist, you'll just be ignoring them and wondering why it isn't the year of the Linux desktop... again.
The Market does link directly to the author's website though, and maybe MS/Apple don't want to do that.
If they didn't want to do that, then why do both Apple and MS have links to the vendors website on every app page of their respective stores and its a requirement for submission to the stores?
Slashdot Mirror
You agree to a binding contract when you signup for Facebook.
The ToS is part of a contract you've agreed to with facebook since you signed up.
In order to hand out your password, you have to breach your contract, which is illegal. You have to break the law to share your password even if it isn't directly illegal, it is indirectly.
The smart thing for an employer to do would be to ask, then not hire anyone who gives the password. Or send them for special training about never sharing passwords. An employee who gives out passwords is a major security threat.
Anyone who uses Facebook is a security threat, they've already demonstrated they don't understand security or privacy or how it can be abused, nor do they pay attention to the monthly way that Facebook leaks data 'accidently' on purpose when it adds new 'features for privacy' or whatever excuse they are up to this week that would have told them not to use Facebook.
Using Facebook shows a significant lack of judgement and ignorance, it is possible that its not ignorance and just plain stupidity, but you should assume ignorance to start with.
Actually, due to a previous online comment, I already have to go through extra security at the airport every time I fly anyway. Shrug, now I just say what ever the fuck I want and don't worry about it :)
As for communism ... I think both communism and socialism are great ideas in THEORY, but due to human nature/instinct they can not be implemented as a practical form of government as they leave too much room for human failures to ruin them. The only form of government that can work with humans in their current state of evolution is one where the people are constantly fighting back and keeping it in check. Basically we use our faults to our advantage rather than ignoring them or pretending they don't exist.
I use Facebook to determine the intelligence level of the person I'm dealing with.
If you have a Facebook account, you've already failed my job interview. You can't be trusted to make intelligent decisions with data, so you don't need to work at this organization.
So I ask for a Facebook login, but I never look, the only correct answer is 'i don't have one'
doing research on alternate fuels, just so they can patent them and then bury the technology?
This has got to be the WORST way possible to abuse the patent system, whose core tenant is to encourage innovation. I've heard of companies buying and then burying things, but to actually R&D them and THEN bury them? wow.
Yea, its like someone made it up its so unbelievable ...
Oh wait ... if you read the article ... you'll find out that it too unbelievable to be true and is in fact just a lie in the summary.
The actual article shows that the company that is suing 'the little guy' is a company setup in order to actually utilize the patent to make fuel ... not sit on it and kill it so no one else can use it ... and that the company suing is far further along in the process and much closer to market.
The higher the price of traditional fuels, the more interest there'll be in biofuels.
Lets also not forget that fuel is not what most oil gets used for. Oil, its products AND its byproducts are used in more or less everything in the modern world.
Forget fuel. Plastics use far more of the oil pulled out of the ground than all of the fuels combined.
Completely replace oil as a fuel with something completely renewable and easy to get, and oil STILL is in demand ... that is as long as you want about 99% of the things in your life to stay as they are.
Fuel is really the least of our concerns for oil, we've already got alternatives, they just aren't as cheap right now, we don't really have viable alternatives for many of the other uses of oil.
Wha ??? Did you think anyone is going to spend millions to billions doing the research for a pat on the head and a thanks well done ?
Even if they couldn't patent it they could still produce the biofuel and continue profiting from it. Hell, if they were doing the research they'd be the experts in the area and thus could sell services to other companies. And if they were the experts in the area that'd also mean they'd most likely still be the first one to start actually monetizing their research.
You know, they didn't patent regular gasoline either and well, it DOES indeed look like they've been profiting from it for years even without patents so even that angle is well covered.
So yeah.. sorry for tearing your argument to shreds.
Being an expert in the area means jack shit when one guy can take all that knowledge out the door with him to your competition, and your competition is more than willing to pay handsomely for that person to do so.
Define 'patent gasoline' ... actually, their probably was at one point, and there are beyond any doubt patents on what you burn in your car today. There are process patents, patents on the chemical additives, patents on the deep water extraction technics, patents on the transport pipelines that get it from the fields to the refineries ... So while their may not be a patent on 'gasoline', thats not what comes out of the pump either so it really doesn't matter.
Clearly, when a patent is being used to kill an industry, the value of the industry is thus zero. Giving nothing to the patent troll sounds like market value compensation to me...
But it may generate profit for the patent holder in another industry, which taking the patent away would result in them losing money, and thus ... they would need to be compensated for that loss instead.
Its really not hard to understand and is absolutely silly that you look at it as if such a simplistic view of the problem would actually fly in the face of any sane person.
A lot of people have the opinion that the ACLU is only about shutting down the speech of Christians/Whites/Men/*insert majority group here.* I think this case proves that not to be the case
Why exactly? They can still be anti-majority and still support things that are otherwise good. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I don't think the ACLU goes after majority groups, but they certainly go after somethings that clearly they shouldn't be, but thats the double edge sword of an organization like the ACLU, their viewpoint of civil liberties is different than mine. So when they are for something I agree with, I support them and make others aware of their fight, and when they are going off on some wildly retarded tangent like they so regularly do, I make sure people understand why I think its silly or wrong.
The same for the EFF, though I must admit the EFF is generally more aligned with my own opinions so its rarer that I disagree with the EFF but it certainly has happened.
One of the things all Americans (I don't want to speak for other countries though its certainly the same in some others) need to remember is that we all don't have to agree on everything. The only thing we all REALLY need to agree with is that its okay for others to have a differing opinion, and its okay for them to do things we don't really agree with as long as they aren't really bothering or harming anyone else. And that is just about where everyone fails, myself included. Its not always easy to accept someone else's opinion, viewpoint or way of doing things.
The Free in FOSS refers to freedom, not cost. Many companies charge for services, so your ideas are not new.
Then shouldn't it be called LOSS?
I'm just sayin' ... Libre is more accurate than Free, and LOSS is far more accurate than FOSS
Why the fuck do you make me throw it onto a USB drive and copy it manually?
You paid for a license and a download, you got both. You didn't pay for a license and unlimited downloads in case you lost it. They told you this when you agreed to the terms, and they aren't really unreasonable. They probably should offer some sort of re-download service at a significantly reduced rate though, but as we've seen, Apple has pushed rather hard to get to where it is now without requiring DRM on everything.
However, as far as your statement, they did provide an entirely reasonable means of replacement, make a backup copy. Thats what you want to copy DVDs and CDs for ISN'T IT? not to pirate them but to back them up? You can do that and are encouraged to do so with iTunes ... now you want them to also fix the fact that you're irresponsible and lost the originals? I'm sorry, thats just not how the world works, thank god. Sometimes you actually have to take some personal responsibility for your possessions and stop expecting someone else to take care of you.
It's not like you don't restrict me to five computers anyway. Be more like Steam.
You mean you want them to make it more restrictive? Steam allows you to use it on one instance at a time if you are online, not 5. Try playing HL2 on 5 machines all connected to the net with steam ... then when 4 or all of them are unable to play, you'll be rather happy that you can at least still listen to your itunes library.
Your being rather ridiculous.
Theoretically PowerDVD can be integrated with the windows Media Center and used with an MCE remote. I've yet to try it though, mostly because I don't have a working IR receiver for Win7, and the PC is nicely connected via HDMI to the TV, and DVI to my normal desktop monitors.
That only works for local playback and does you no good for media center extenders.
I have one Win7 PC running media center and 4 xboxes through-out the house acting as extenders for actual display, the Win7PC sits in my networking closet.
I don't have a problem with that. I rip all my BluRay films as soon as they arrive.
I don't even have a stand-alone player for this kind of reason.
If they ever change things so I can't rip my movies I'll just stop buying them completely.
I still get surprised everytime I see someone on Slashdot buying disks.
I'm not saying you should be pirating, but personally I decided after the HDDVD/Bluray bullshit that neither format was the winner because both were trying to tie me down to their crap for another 10 years and just decided the intelligent thing to do would be to not give the studios any more money for things provided to me the way they want rather than the way I want for no reason other than it makes their pockets fatter.
I believe there is a time and place for proprietary software, I'm not an OSS zealot, though I fully approve of OSS, contribute too and release almost all of my own work under a BSD license, I also work as a developer of proprietary software ... but what I do not believe in is proprietary formats for data, it does no one any good long term. I've moved our own software to 'open' formats (they aren't really open imho as they aren't documented publically in anyway, but its just easy to figure out XML files and work with our server communications) because its easier for US too. Yes, someone MIGHT take our format and do a better job than we do, but ... its not something I'm afraid of, I'll just make ours better and sell our service because it will be the better service.
Lets hope these fuckers and their proprietary DRM encrusted crap dies a quick and horrible death by people realizing how wrong this sort of shit is.
What did the Slashdot gang break this time?
As a safari user, pretty much everything, but I'm so used to slashdot not working right that I didn't notice!
Note to slashdot site maker dude: YOU SUCK AT HTML, CSS AND JAVASCRIPT, STOP FUCKING TRYING TO MAKE IT SO GOD DAMN COMPLEX, IT IS CLEARLY WELL OUTSIDE YOUR ABILITIES.
I couldn't make a site like slashdot work in every browser so you know what I did at my company? Fucking hired someone who could.
Really? When has it been used?
It hasn't.
You're statement is 100% false at this time.
A razor:
1) They complied with orders to shut down the routers because AK-74's were pointed at them.
2) They complied with orders to shut down the routers because they believed that would in fact aid the rebellion.
You decide.
OR
3) The Internet wasn't nearly as insturemental in the process as everyone is making it out to be and the truth of the matter the peoples actions ... not text messages, tweets, and walls mosts overthrew the government.
You live in a really fucked up haze if you think twitter or facebook had anything to do with it other than letting people outside the area know what was going on.
>>>"I will obey, because the government will jail or possibly kill me and my family if I don't".
And this is different from refusing a search in the EU or US - how?
I'm not sure what fucking world you live in, but no one in the EU or US has been killed recently for telling the TSA to go fuck themselves. Get some fucking perspective, the EU and US are NOTHING like that.
Someone should ship you off to one of these places so you actually understand what real suffering is. And now, 'they turned off my internetz' is not fucking suffering, which no one has ever done to you anyway.
Right, because thats what actually happens.
Typically MS buys out the developers before taking over the project and employees them to continue working on it. There are plenty of examples of this out there, sysinternals is the first that comes to mind but thats just one.
but it doesn't say you can't sell software which includes proprietary code you stole and don't allow redistribution of.
It doesn't have to say it, thats covered by law, not license agreements and they can't change that law regardless.
They don't need to state that you aren't allowed to kill your wife because its already illegal to kill your wife, just like it is to steal and redistribute source code you are not authorized to do so.
It's not that they feel they are not able to comply with GPL, they don't want to.
Okay, they don't want to, that really doesn't change anything does it?
GPL places additional requirements that go against what MS wants to do, so MS is evil? Why doesn't GPL change itself to be compatible with the MS and Apple stores? OH WAIT, it did change recently ... and went the opposite direction, making it impossible to use in such environments.
I guess I'm evil because I won't let GPL software anywhere near my company. Love my FreeBSD though, and I contribute patches to several BSD licensed projects.
I will never however, redistribute or contribute to a GPL project, so I must be an evil bastard by your definition.
means any license requiring, as a condition of use,
Way to read, ignoring the 'requiring, as a condition of use,
and treating it as if it meant 'allowed'.
You suck at reading, as do all the idiots who modded you up.
Interestingly enough, though, another person could conceivably download that code and make changes to it and then claim that Apple is violating the gpl
No, you can't. The changed code is not on the app store, so the author of the new code has no claim to whats on the app store, nor does the author of the changed code have any right to say how the original code is used/distributed, how the author chooses to license it or anything else about it. GPL does not give you the right to tell someone else what to do with their code, it only allows you to redistribute, change, and use code that has been given to you. Nothing more, it is not all inclusive. You still don't get to tell someone else what to do.
You aren't entitled to anything, stop acting like you are.
The LGPL and BSD licenses are not incompatible with app stores, but MS has banned them all*
The BSD license is not incompatible and is in fact used with MANY software packages on the Apple app store. Apple is fully aware of it. I know they are, I've told them every single time I've submitted a new App.
Neither is it incompatible with the MS store for that matter, but hey, why stop spreading the FUD when you're on a roll, eh?
The only problem is with GPL and GPL-like licenses which prevent you from adding any other restrictions. This is an intentional feature of GPL.
If you don't like it, you shouldn't be using GPL.
The problem with OSS license is that they will, in general, prevent companies like MS from taking the software, putting a copyright on it
Licensing has nothing to do with copyright. No one can take your copyright regardless of license. MS can't take and claim copyright on code under any license unless the copyright owner transfers the copyright to MS specifically.
Your statement is pure FUD. Even BSD or Public Domain software can not have its copyright changed, the license and the copyright are entirely 100% unrelated and your attempt to confuse the two shows that either you are ignorant of both copyright and licensing or just trying to spread FUD.
Eitherway, the statement is 100% false in everyway, you should do some research into what Copyright actually is.
Pretty much this seems to a clear means to prevent any software that competes with MS from entering the store, since almost all such software is OSS.
I think perhaps you should take your head out of the sand, thats just a completely ignorant statement indicating you have no clue what the Windows software landscape looks like and you assume the OSS is something MS is afraid of in that aspect. The reality of it is, OSS presents little threat to MS on the desktop as there has yet to be an OSS package for a Windows OS of any size that didn't look like it was written in the 70s by a bunch of guys with no clue what the end user actually wanted. You may not care that it looks antiquated but the majority of the public does, that alone keeps OSS down, MS doesn't have to work much harder after that.
I'm sure I'll get marked a troll, but that won't change anything, the same reasons will still exist, you'll just be ignoring them and wondering why it isn't the year of the Linux desktop ... again.
The Market does link directly to the author's website though, and maybe MS/Apple don't want to do that.
If they didn't want to do that, then why do both Apple and MS have links to the vendors website on every app page of their respective stores and its a requirement for submission to the stores?