There's just about zero chance that 13,000 iPhone users responded to an Engadget poll. There's also just about zero chance of a near 50% failure rate in activations. Engadget has no real relationship with "actual user experience" and your post is, further, pretty much BS.
I have to agree with this as well--except when I was forced to switch to a Cingular corporate account. Despite making it clear that it was not my decision to leave T-Mobile and that I loved the service I'd received from my years with them, I was given a Verizon-worthy runaround trying to cancel the service. My contract was mere weeks from expiring, and I was more than happy to pay it out. I ended up paying for a month of service BEYOND my contract (with zero airtime, but over $70 for the service) before I was finally permitted to cancel. I very nearly had to threaten legal action to get it done.
But up until that 7-week debacle (I was literally on the phone with them at least four days of every week and logged over 30 hours of talk [mostly hold] time, just getting them to close the account), it was a remarkably pleasant experience. Accurate billing, friendly service, lots of "extra" help beyond the bare minimum, and none of that random "network busy" crap that Cingular pulls all too often (fewest dropped calls AND as a bonus, fewest connected calls!). I still use T-Mobile branded hardware, even on Cingular/AT&T, in fact.
If you provide a "written offer" with your distribution the GPL says that you should ship the source code when asked for it; it doesn't specify that you should do it overnight. If it was good enough for you to use in support of your "argument," then it's good enough to use against it.
You must give prominent notice with each copy of the work that the Library is used in it and that the Library and its use are covered by this License. You must supply a copy of this License. If the work during execution displays copyright notices, you must include the copyright notice for the Library among them, as well as a reference directing the user to the copy of this License. Also, you must do one of these things:
[...]
* c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution [...] Parallels has provided an email address to contact for source code fulfillment. They have provided source in the past and presumably will continue to do so in the future in accordance with this provision. Nowhere does it say it must be done in a timely fashion. Legally, they're not in violation.
You even posted this gem, agreeing 100% with that reality:
If you provide a "written offer" with your distribution the GPL says that you should ship the source code when asked for it; it doesn't specify that you should do it overnight. There it is. I don't think it's appropriate to drag feet, but 3 weeks hardly qualifies as dragging feet in my book given the possible complexity of issues here. Your opinion may differ, and that's fine, but the legal terms are quite clear: no deadline.
So, in conclusion, recall the nonsense you started:
"There's also no deadline imposed by the license" [ed- that's my line you're quoting]
You know absolutely nothing about copyright do you? And look how that turned out. There is no deadline in the LGPL or required by law, and my knowledge of copyright vastly outstrips your own. That isn't important though. What's important is that your original premise is WRONG, and you even helped to prove it yourself. We've conclusively demonstrated that I gave a factually accurate assessment of the legal requirements, and that you only know a handful of words that aren't "dumbass." And that, my friends, is the end of that.
You can't
agree to the license and then ignore the terms of that license. Yes you can. That post is saying that there's no such thing as "license violation" which is just a popular anti-IP myth. They're the same crowd who claim EULAs don't apply to them, despite the courts disagreeing (no court has ever categorically overturned the validity of EULAs in general). It has to be license violation because you've provided your code to the entire world under those terms. You, as an entity releasing code via LGPL, are engaging in licensing with the entire world. Cute forum posts notwithstanding, the idea that you pretend the LGPL doesn't exist when someone violates its terms does not hold water.
If you provide a "written offer" with your distribution the GPL says
that you should ship the source code when asked for it; it doesn't
specify that you should do it overnight. I think that it would be very
reasonable to allow a company to collect requests and ship once a week.
Dragging the process more than a month, smells like GPL abuse to me. This is an excellent quote. It proves exactly my point. Thanks. There is no timeline included. It's impolite to drag feet, but not a violation.
Ergo, the first excerpt you've provided is of no consequence, because we've established that the delay in providing code is not, in fact, in violation of the LGPL!
You don't have to care about Apple at all to know that 38% of people aren't having problems with activation. Just ask Reuters. They say 2%, and I trust their sources infinitely more than an Engadget poll with roughly the same number of responses as every other Engadget poll and absolutely no mechanism to restrict responses--two clicks to a vote is an easy target.
The link I provided was from a FAQ from the authors of the LGPL. I guess you know better huh? Damn straight. So do you. You even pasted Section 6. Only ONE of the five options involves the inclusion of source code with the distribution, and you're only required to do ONE of the five to be in compliance. The FAQ is wrong, and you know it.
Sorry dumbass, I didn't say "some other license". I said "copyright law." Oh! I get it. Every time you say "dumbass" it's meant to distract from the fact that every point it's attached to not only makes no sense, but fails to hold up under the tiniest bit of scrutiny. You said: "...to redistribute LGPLd code under a different license. (what a dumbass)" No one was talking about any "different licenses" until you decided to declare that failing to comply with the LGPL constituted a release under a "different license" rather than actually responding to my comments. This is where it gets back to you.
You said copyright law, indeed. But you're moronically toting it as though the LGPL doesn't exist when violated. That's not how the law works. If you release code under a blanket license like the LGPL, and someone violates that license, you pursue action as, oddly enough, LICENSE VIOLATION. You've licensed your copyright and copyright law is not the controlling statute under that eventuality. You can't release something to the world specifying alternative arrangements than those provided by copyright and then say "Except you. For you, I'm going to use copyright law to sue." It absolutely does not work that way, and you can't support that argument, or you would have brought in evidence by now.
Please identify the section where it says you can provide access to the source at your leisure. Please identify the section where it says you must provide the source immediately or on Whiney Mac Bitch's preferred timeframe when exercising option Section 6(e) (as SWsoft has done--providing an email contact for you to request such source as appropriate in FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE LGPL), as I mentioned hours ago. Nothing gets into your Mac-RDF, does it?
Not entirely correct. If there are no modifications, then it falls under Section 6(e): "e) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials or that you have already sent this user a copy."
In other words, if there are no modifications, then they can get the original source from the developer of the library or verify that the customer already has the source of the library, having obtained it from the original developer or any other source. Alternatively, you can contact the email address they've provided for the purpose at the Parallels site and request a copy of the source. They'll provide it or provide you with a link, fulfilling their LGPL requirements.
Wrong again. If you'd just read the link I provided earlier... The link is wrong. I gave you the relevant section of the LGPL *itself.* Read carefully section 6. It does NOT NEED TO INCLUDE SOURCE CODE IN THE DISTRIBUTION.
Dumbass. If you violate the license (ie by not distributing source code), then you fall back to copyright law. There is no "fall back" provision. If it is distributed with a given license, that is the license. If it's not in compliance with those terms, then there's a license violation case to be tried. It doesn't suddenly become "some other license" just because you say it does. That's the real story, something you can't seem to get your thick skull around. There is no "copyleft" in the law. If you release code for free, allowing anyone to use it and copyright their derivatives, and they release a distribution with nonconforming LGPL code, they've violated the license. It doesn't "fall back" to anything else. You've licensed your copyright; copyright "infringement" must be pursued via that license. Welcome to Law 101.
I'm going to write a journal about misconecptions of the (L)GPL, using you and your dumbassed comments as examples. Have fun building your own little civilization on your own sad, little hill. The rest of us will continue living in reality.
Not only that, but the respondents are self-selecting (why would the "happy middle," who have no stake in spreading their tales of joy, even respond to the poll? While a higher percentage of early adopters probably read Engadget, it's still a small minority of the market. How about the benefit of iPhone haters claiming problems just to stir the pot?) and don't have to "prove" that they even have an iPhone. It's basically the same as asking, "what's your opinion about Windows Vista after purchase?" without taking any further steps.
Are we really willing to believe that 13,000 iPhone customers responded to a poll on a tech-nerd website like Engadget? If that's even remotely accurate, that should indicate the high sales rate of the iPhone. But then again, it's similar to the response rate of every other Engadget poll, so it's probably total crap.
For the record, I don't care either way whether or not 38% of customers had activation trouble or not. I don't care whether 100,000 iPhones sold or 2 million did. It's a neat gadget, but my life isn't riding on it.
* LGPL compliance imposes a code commenting requirement. (wtf?) The standard GPL is more clear about this, but the LGPL defines source code as: ""Source code" for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." That would include comments to make sense of it, and release of undocumented source code is not only impolite, but naturally exclusive of the PREFERRED FORM OF THE WORK and could therefore be ruled to be a violation of the LGPL in Whiney Mac Fanboy's black-and-white justice theater.
The (L)GPL license doesn't impose a deadline to release code. It doesn't. Your empty, mocking questions aside, you have not addressed this point. It says you must make it available. It does not say that you must make it available concurrent with the release. It doesn't say this because it would cut out a massive number of developers who need time to clean up code and comments and check through other commitments, licenses, terms, and overlapping restrictions and obligations.
The LGPL says this: "c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution." (Section 6). SWsoft has provided that option on their site. The LGPL does not specify that these requests must be fulfilled immediately, and it is not up to your brilliant juridical mind (ha!) to make a noncompliance determination on behalf of anything or anyone.
You don't need permission to redistribute LGPLd code under a different license. (what a dumbass) I never said that, though you are proving to be quite the dumbass. The code is released under the LGPL. Your contention is that it does not conform--i.e. it is in violation. That is something that only those owning the relevant copyrights can allege, first of all. Second, it does not mean that it was released under an alternative license. This is not the way it works. If you violate your employment contract, that does not automatically make you not an employee of your company. You may be terminated as a result of that violation, but they are NOT coreferential, either under the law or under any logical construct of semantics.
3) If you don't accept the LGPL (they haven't as they didn't included the modified code), then you fall back to copyright. Absolutely incorrect. Noncompliance with the LGPL is a license issue, not a copyright one. You have released your code via the LGPL to anyone. Not all products based on that code require you to submit source code in response--in fact, derived works like Parallels are, in part, excepted. The complex atmosphere this creates makes it difficult for a company to know which segments of source code must be given back, and it's entirely possible that the modifications made by SWsoft do not require source code to be provided. Further, it is a mischaracterization to claim that the LGPL requires you to include source code with the distribution--it doesn't. See section 6(c). Just because your half-assed view feels that SWsoft is not complying with the LGPL (a reality not yet demonstrable fact) does not mean that you "fall back" to anything. LGPL code is released gratis. It can be used in proprietary products without any source being provided back in specific situations. If a product is released and includes a copy of the LGPL (as Parallels does), it doesn't "fall back" anywhere. It is covered by the LGPL. Violation of the LGPL is a licensing issue. SWsoft owns the copyright on the derived work, so no, copyright doesn't force them to do anything.
Would you knock off the "don't understand" bullshit already? A license violation does NOT "fall back to copyright law"--it's a license violation, which is pursued in court in and of itself. SWsoft hasn't violated the license because the Wine people are the only ones with the authority to make that accusation, and they haven't. They have not yet provided source code. Once again, read the goddamned LGPL. It does NOT make it a requirement that source be released IMMEDIATELY. You're grasping and failing to understand the legal repercussions of the release of LGPL software. SWsoft owns the copyright on the modified software--it's their derivative work. They are required by license agreement to provide source code to LGPL components. They are NOT REQUIRED BY COPYRIGHT TO DO SO. End of story.
If you can't make a point without being a hostile jackass, it's clear there's no point to be made. Take away your bluster and all you're left with are asinine statements about copyright, slowly being conceded to "copyleft" but still not holding any water. Good bye.
NB- by "MAI v. Peak was overturned in appeal" I do not mean the ruling on the 1993 case, but rather subsequent rulings based on the decision, which of course is moot after the 1998 revision to copyright law.
It's not a strawman--it can't be, since it was key to the initial premise of "home users" outside the commercial sphere. Your case fails on that front--it is a commercial, not a personal, act. It also regards copyright infringement by means of "misappropriation;" that is, Peak had no rights to the software AT ALL and therefore illegally gained access to the copyrighted work. This would not apply were Peak a licensed customer/owner of a licensed copy and the decision quite plainly states that fact.
Even ignoring those blatant and obvious failings, MAI v. Peak was overturned in appeal and one of the many revisions made to s. 117 around the time the DMCA was passed includes a SPECIFIC EXCEPTION for exactly this ruling.
Are you honestly trying to say that you need to ask permission to distribute? Come on. You've been proven wrong at every turn. Just give it up. You keep falling back on a "you don't know what you're talking about" line, but you've yet to demonstrate otherwise and it fills the bulk of your responses. I'm done with you.
Wrong. SWsoft took copyrighted code released under blanket provision of the LGPL, modified it, and released it, as they are permitted to do under the license. Code released under the LGPL does not require express permission from the copyright holder to be used or rereleased.
Keep turning those rusty brain wheels. (L)GPL code is copyrighted by whom? The developers. Derivative code is copyrighted by whom? Those who derived it. In this case, the Parallels people.
Where, precisely, do you intend to make your malformed point, and what, if any, is it? Explain what this has to do with copyright instead of asking inane and inaccurate questions. It is you who lacks a grasp of any actual legal issues here.
Have you seen how thin the lids are on PowerBooks and MacBook Pros? They can't get much thinner without sacrificing structural integrity. The LED backlight does not contribute substantially to that thinning process--look at the new 15" MBPs that have LED backlights. The disassembly pictures don't show a wealth of wasted space in the lid. LED backlight is thinner, but the whole thing is already so thin that another millimeter isn't going to cause too much awe.
Phone sales. For example, when you bought your phone in 2005, only 12% of people buying phones bought 3G phones. Source. Admittedly this particular source is referring only to WCDMA, but it makes a solid reference for the year in question. 2006 year-long (not quarterly) sales were on the order of 21-23% 3G according to a trade journal article that I can't seem to find at the moment.
Lots of phones offered 3G, but consumers don't really use it, even on a worldwide scale. Here's a link from the same site referencing newer figures (though I trust this site less than my trade journals). 20% global 3G handset owners, 9% use.
It's nothing to do with code commenting - that's a mater of politeness - not legalilty. Wrong again! Read the GPL. "Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented..."
So releasing "unpolite" code would be in violation of the (L)GPL. You see, here is actually a place where the GPL *specifies* what needs to be done (unlike the release timeline of the code) and you still can't even get that right.
You know absolutely nothing about copyright do you? That's a funny statement, considering (L)GPL software isn't copyrighted by the FSF--only the license itself is copyrighted. The GPL is a "copyleft" license--developers still own the copyright for their own work based on the (L)GPL. They are only required to pass on the GPL license so other developers know their rights and they must pass on the source code. It does not say that source code must be released immediately or concurrent with the product. Small one-person developers certainly don't.
Looks like someone doesn't understand lots of things.
Microsoft has more lawyers than Parallels has employees, so that's not really a valid comparison.
If you realistically think that a business is going to miss a shipping deadline (even one set internally and not announced publicly at all) because some esoteric code commenting isn't done to appease some geeks, you've obviously been living on another planet. As we all know, they don't stop the shipping even when the products aren't done (you can point your finger at just about any company for this--even Microsoft, with their armies of programmers, testers, and QA folks), much less when the holdup is the release of some source code.
22 days isn't long at all. It's certainly not the longest anyone's waited for (L)GPL code. There's also no deadline imposed by the license, so ultimately it's more of a suggestion and their letters amount to nagging (appropriate nagging, but still nagging). This is one of the big problems of letting anyone work with code: they don't conform to your timelines and they don't care about the same things you do. You have to get over that not everyone is going to jump when you say jump in a collaborative/peer environment.
In addition to the limited and unreliable networks for US GSM providers and the reasons given about power consumption, physical size, and everything else, people should remember this: In 2006, only ~20% of European cell phone sales were 3G-capable. Europe has a vastly superior and widely available 3G network essentially everywhere. They have the ubiquity there that GPRS has here--and European consumers are only slowly easing into it even several years into the "future" (by American standards).
They have several years before 3G even makes a difference here. The iPhone will be obsolete in countless other ways by then. It's not as though having 3G would mean that people would realistically keep it longer. The tiny percentage of people who care immensely about 3G in the US are almost completely overlapping that segment of people who replace their Treo annually anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
There's just about zero chance that 13,000 iPhone users responded to an Engadget poll. There's also just about zero chance of a near 50% failure rate in activations. Engadget has no real relationship with "actual user experience" and your post is, further, pretty much BS.
I have to agree with this as well--except when I was forced to switch to a Cingular corporate account. Despite making it clear that it was not my decision to leave T-Mobile and that I loved the service I'd received from my years with them, I was given a Verizon-worthy runaround trying to cancel the service. My contract was mere weeks from expiring, and I was more than happy to pay it out. I ended up paying for a month of service BEYOND my contract (with zero airtime, but over $70 for the service) before I was finally permitted to cancel. I very nearly had to threaten legal action to get it done.
But up until that 7-week debacle (I was literally on the phone with them at least four days of every week and logged over 30 hours of talk [mostly hold] time, just getting them to close the account), it was a remarkably pleasant experience. Accurate billing, friendly service, lots of "extra" help beyond the bare minimum, and none of that random "network busy" crap that Cingular pulls all too often (fewest dropped calls AND as a bonus, fewest connected calls!). I still use T-Mobile branded hardware, even on Cingular/AT&T, in fact.
You even posted this gem, agreeing 100% with that reality: If you provide a "written offer" with your distribution the GPL says that you should ship the source code when asked for it; it doesn't specify that you should do it overnight. There it is. I don't think it's appropriate to drag feet, but 3 weeks hardly qualifies as dragging feet in my book given the possible complexity of issues here. Your opinion may differ, and that's fine, but the legal terms are quite clear: no deadline.
So, in conclusion, recall the nonsense you started: "There's also no deadline imposed by the license" [ed- that's my line you're quoting]
You know absolutely nothing about copyright do you? And look how that turned out. There is no deadline in the LGPL or required by law, and my knowledge of copyright vastly outstrips your own. That isn't important though. What's important is that your original premise is WRONG, and you even helped to prove it yourself. We've conclusively demonstrated that I gave a factually accurate assessment of the legal requirements, and that you only know a handful of words that aren't "dumbass." And that, my friends, is the end of that.
...it's license violation. It's late here, I forgot to finish the sentence before submitting.
Ergo, the first excerpt you've provided is of no consequence, because we've established that the delay in providing code is not, in fact, in violation of the LGPL!
You don't have to care about Apple at all to know that 38% of people aren't having problems with activation. Just ask Reuters. They say 2%, and I trust their sources infinitely more than an Engadget poll with roughly the same number of responses as every other Engadget poll and absolutely no mechanism to restrict responses--two clicks to a vote is an easy target.
NT
You said copyright law, indeed. But you're moronically toting it as though the LGPL doesn't exist when violated. That's not how the law works. If you release code under a blanket license like the LGPL, and someone violates that license, you pursue action as, oddly enough, LICENSE VIOLATION. You've licensed your copyright and copyright law is not the controlling statute under that eventuality. You can't release something to the world specifying alternative arrangements than those provided by copyright and then say "Except you. For you, I'm going to use copyright law to sue." It absolutely does not work that way, and you can't support that argument, or you would have brought in evidence by now. Please identify the section where it says you can provide access to the source at your leisure. Please identify the section where it says you must provide the source immediately or on Whiney Mac Bitch's preferred timeframe when exercising option Section 6(e) (as SWsoft has done--providing an email contact for you to request such source as appropriate in FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE LGPL), as I mentioned hours ago. Nothing gets into your Mac-RDF, does it?
Not entirely correct. If there are no modifications, then it falls under Section 6(e):
"e) Verify that the user has already received a copy of these materials or that you have already sent this user a copy."
In other words, if there are no modifications, then they can get the original source from the developer of the library or verify that the customer already has the source of the library, having obtained it from the original developer or any other source. Alternatively, you can contact the email address they've provided for the purpose at the Parallels site and request a copy of the source. They'll provide it or provide you with a link, fulfilling their LGPL requirements.
Not only that, but the respondents are self-selecting (why would the "happy middle," who have no stake in spreading their tales of joy, even respond to the poll? While a higher percentage of early adopters probably read Engadget, it's still a small minority of the market. How about the benefit of iPhone haters claiming problems just to stir the pot?) and don't have to "prove" that they even have an iPhone. It's basically the same as asking, "what's your opinion about Windows Vista after purchase?" without taking any further steps.
Are we really willing to believe that 13,000 iPhone customers responded to a poll on a tech-nerd website like Engadget? If that's even remotely accurate, that should indicate the high sales rate of the iPhone. But then again, it's similar to the response rate of every other Engadget poll, so it's probably total crap.
For the record, I don't care either way whether or not 38% of customers had activation trouble or not. I don't care whether 100,000 iPhones sold or 2 million did. It's a neat gadget, but my life isn't riding on it.
The LGPL says this: "c) Accompany the work with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give the same user the materials specified in Subsection 6a, above, for a charge no more than the cost of performing this distribution." (Section 6). SWsoft has provided that option on their site. The LGPL does not specify that these requests must be fulfilled immediately, and it is not up to your brilliant juridical mind (ha!) to make a noncompliance determination on behalf of anything or anyone. You don't need permission to redistribute LGPLd code under a different license. (what a dumbass) I never said that, though you are proving to be quite the dumbass. The code is released under the LGPL. Your contention is that it does not conform--i.e. it is in violation. That is something that only those owning the relevant copyrights can allege, first of all. Second, it does not mean that it was released under an alternative license. This is not the way it works. If you violate your employment contract, that does not automatically make you not an employee of your company. You may be terminated as a result of that violation, but they are NOT coreferential, either under the law or under any logical construct of semantics. 3) If you don't accept the LGPL (they haven't as they didn't included the modified code), then you fall back to copyright. Absolutely incorrect. Noncompliance with the LGPL is a license issue, not a copyright one. You have released your code via the LGPL to anyone. Not all products based on that code require you to submit source code in response--in fact, derived works like Parallels are, in part, excepted. The complex atmosphere this creates makes it difficult for a company to know which segments of source code must be given back, and it's entirely possible that the modifications made by SWsoft do not require source code to be provided. Further, it is a mischaracterization to claim that the LGPL requires you to include source code with the distribution--it doesn't. See section 6(c). Just because your half-assed view feels that SWsoft is not complying with the LGPL (a reality not yet demonstrable fact) does not mean that you "fall back" to anything. LGPL code is released gratis. It can be used in proprietary products without any source being provided back in specific situations. If a product is released and includes a copy of the LGPL (as Parallels does), it doesn't "fall back" anywhere. It is covered by the LGPL. Violation of the LGPL is a licensing issue. SWsoft owns the copyright on the derived work, so no, copyright doesn't force them to do anything.
Would you knock off the "don't understand" bullshit already? A license violation does NOT "fall back to copyright law"--it's a license violation, which is pursued in court in and of itself. SWsoft hasn't violated the license because the Wine people are the only ones with the authority to make that accusation, and they haven't. They have not yet provided source code. Once again, read the goddamned LGPL. It does NOT make it a requirement that source be released IMMEDIATELY. You're grasping and failing to understand the legal repercussions of the release of LGPL software. SWsoft owns the copyright on the modified software--it's their derivative work. They are required by license agreement to provide source code to LGPL components. They are NOT REQUIRED BY COPYRIGHT TO DO SO. End of story.
If you can't make a point without being a hostile jackass, it's clear there's no point to be made. Take away your bluster and all you're left with are asinine statements about copyright, slowly being conceded to "copyleft" but still not holding any water. Good bye.
NB- by "MAI v. Peak was overturned in appeal" I do not mean the ruling on the 1993 case, but rather subsequent rulings based on the decision, which of course is moot after the 1998 revision to copyright law.
It's not a strawman--it can't be, since it was key to the initial premise of "home users" outside the commercial sphere. Your case fails on that front--it is a commercial, not a personal, act. It also regards copyright infringement by means of "misappropriation;" that is, Peak had no rights to the software AT ALL and therefore illegally gained access to the copyrighted work. This would not apply were Peak a licensed customer/owner of a licensed copy and the decision quite plainly states that fact.
Even ignoring those blatant and obvious failings, MAI v. Peak was overturned in appeal and one of the many revisions made to s. 117 around the time the DMCA was passed includes a SPECIFIC EXCEPTION for exactly this ruling.
Try again.
Are you honestly trying to say that you need to ask permission to distribute? Come on. You've been proven wrong at every turn. Just give it up. You keep falling back on a "you don't know what you're talking about" line, but you've yet to demonstrate otherwise and it fills the bulk of your responses. I'm done with you.
Wrong. SWsoft took copyrighted code released under blanket provision of the LGPL, modified it, and released it, as they are permitted to do under the license. Code released under the LGPL does not require express permission from the copyright holder to be used or rereleased.
Better luck next time.
Keep turning those rusty brain wheels. (L)GPL code is copyrighted by whom? The developers. Derivative code is copyrighted by whom? Those who derived it. In this case, the Parallels people.
Where, precisely, do you intend to make your malformed point, and what, if any, is it? Explain what this has to do with copyright instead of asking inane and inaccurate questions. It is you who lacks a grasp of any actual legal issues here.
Have you seen how thin the lids are on PowerBooks and MacBook Pros? They can't get much thinner without sacrificing structural integrity. The LED backlight does not contribute substantially to that thinning process--look at the new 15" MBPs that have LED backlights. The disassembly pictures don't show a wealth of wasted space in the lid. LED backlight is thinner, but the whole thing is already so thin that another millimeter isn't going to cause too much awe.
Phone sales. For example, when you bought your phone in 2005, only 12% of people buying phones bought 3G phones. Source. Admittedly this particular source is referring only to WCDMA, but it makes a solid reference for the year in question. 2006 year-long (not quarterly) sales were on the order of 21-23% 3G according to a trade journal article that I can't seem to find at the moment. Lots of phones offered 3G, but consumers don't really use it, even on a worldwide scale. Here's a link from the same site referencing newer figures (though I trust this site less than my trade journals). 20% global 3G handset owners, 9% use.
So releasing "unpolite" code would be in violation of the (L)GPL. You see, here is actually a place where the GPL *specifies* what needs to be done (unlike the release timeline of the code) and you still can't even get that right.
Looks like someone doesn't understand lots of things.
Microsoft has more lawyers than Parallels has employees, so that's not really a valid comparison.
If you realistically think that a business is going to miss a shipping deadline (even one set internally and not announced publicly at all) because some esoteric code commenting isn't done to appease some geeks, you've obviously been living on another planet. As we all know, they don't stop the shipping even when the products aren't done (you can point your finger at just about any company for this--even Microsoft, with their armies of programmers, testers, and QA folks), much less when the holdup is the release of some source code.
22 days isn't long at all. It's certainly not the longest anyone's waited for (L)GPL code. There's also no deadline imposed by the license, so ultimately it's more of a suggestion and their letters amount to nagging (appropriate nagging, but still nagging). This is one of the big problems of letting anyone work with code: they don't conform to your timelines and they don't care about the same things you do. You have to get over that not everyone is going to jump when you say jump in a collaborative/peer environment.
The whole 3G thing is grossly overblown.
In addition to the limited and unreliable networks for US GSM providers and the reasons given about power consumption, physical size, and everything else, people should remember this: In 2006, only ~20% of European cell phone sales were 3G-capable. Europe has a vastly superior and widely available 3G network essentially everywhere. They have the ubiquity there that GPRS has here--and European consumers are only slowly easing into it even several years into the "future" (by American standards).
They have several years before 3G even makes a difference here. The iPhone will be obsolete in countless other ways by then. It's not as though having 3G would mean that people would realistically keep it longer. The tiny percentage of people who care immensely about 3G in the US are almost completely overlapping that segment of people who replace their Treo annually anyway.