curt15

80 ms·

1051.
by curt15 11y ago
It shouldn't even be necessary to bring in net neutrality. This should fail on anti-competitive grounds alone.
1052.
by curt15 11y ago
I can't imagine MS getting the approval to sell its products in China without kowtowing to the regime's censorship and surveillance demands.
1053.
by curt15 11y ago
As someone who spends most of the time in the browser, I'd actually prefer as much as possible to be in browser tabs that I can easily jump to via ctrl+[tab position] instead of having to cycle between external programs with alt-tab.
1054.
by curt15 11y ago
Public Knowledge, an ally of the FSF, actually recommends independent implementation (like what Google did with Java and glibc) as a method for escaping the GPL: >If a developer does not want to be subject to the licensing terms of a lib
1055.
by curt15 11y ago
>P.S. The law of the land is now that when you create an API it is copyrighted. No, it's just the law of the Federal Circuit and only when interpreting 9th circuit law. Their decision is not binding precedent on any of the usual cir
1056.
by curt15 11y ago
>The Supreme Court, however, declined to hear the case, strongly implying (or maybe directly indicating?) that it thought the decision was correct. As the court emphasized in Missouri v Jenkins (1995), "[t]he denial of a writ of cer
1057.
by curt15 11y ago
It's also interesting to note that this is essentially the outcome advocated by the FSF in its amicus brief to the federal circuit. https://www.eff.org/cases/oracle-v-google
1058.
by curt15 11y ago
OpenJDK is the reference implementation of Java. The whole point of its GPL license is to ensure that the project forever remains with the community.
1059.
by curt15 11y ago
The federal circuit's opinion concerning the copyrightability of APIs is only binding precedent on the federal circuit itself and only when interpreting 9th circuit law. The FC's usual jurisdiction is over patents, not copyrights,