If you violate a software license you are infringing on copyright, it does not matter if it is a free license or not. The owner of the copyright can seek damages and injunctive relief. See the lawsuits against Fortinet and D-Link in Germany and Cisco in the US.
The whole point of google code is to make code available to the wider OSS community. They can make the code available to the same people (that is, anyone interested) using google code or github or sourceforge or launchpad or bitbucket or...
I'd have expected google to eat their own dog food.
Just like Wikimedia Commons choosing not to offer content from the big film and music industries based on something (like the fact that they don't have a free licence). I'd love to see the MAFFIA whining about Wikimedia censoring them and asking the government to do something about it.
"I don't think it was dumped out of malice or even mismanagement. The most shrewd and "vile" reason I can ascribe is that Braben and CO don't want to let people poke or even examine and potentially copy their procedural galaxy simulation."
So they promised a feature they actually did not want to deliver, but not out of malice or mismanagement? Just out of their nuts, then?
If there is any sort of "humiliation" from this picture then it's due to the picture being somehow more public. Or maybe it's due to the picture being used "to illustrate the pitfalls of posting private images online" and "to suggest she should be ashamed", not just "the picture being somehow more public".
I see no countervailing value in removing published and true statements. That would not make sense even if this was about removing published and true statements --which it is not, no statements are actually going to be removed from anywhere.
"did not include freedom from having your silly past actions from childhood reposted and indexed by google for the rest of your life"
How can that be regarded as "freedom"? Maybe a right, the right to not be ashamed because of your silly past actions from chilhood. It looks like a silly right to me but anyway.
No. If the company are *claiming* than you violate the TOS, then the company is *claiming* (not just believing) that your activity is unlawful, so the company claims you violate the law. Against what you (or someone called like you) said.
On the post: Waterboarding Whistleblower Released From Prison, Two Months After Torture Report's Release Vindicated His Actions
Come on, things can't be that bad, or are they?
On the post: MPAA's Lies About Films Being Available Online Easily Debunked In Seconds
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why We Still Can't Really Put Anything In The Public Domain... And Why That Needs To Change
Re:
On the post: Google Moves End-To-End Email Encryption Project To GitHub
Re: Re:
They can make the code available to the same people (that is, anyone interested) using google code or github or sourceforge or launchpad or bitbucket or...
I'd have expected google to eat their own dog food.
On the post: Google Moves End-To-End Email Encryption Project To GitHub
On the post: Surprise: Spanish Newspapers Beg Government And EU To Stop Google News Shutting Down
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Pulls Out The Nuclear Option: Shuts Down Google News In Spain Over Ridiculous Copyright Law
Re: Typical GOOG apology-- you don't get something for nothing
Actually they are adding traffic.
On the post: Elite: Dangerous Deletes Promised Offline Mode Just Before Release, Non-Committal On Kickstarter/Beta Refunds
Re: Not exactly true
So they promised a feature they actually did not want to deliver, but not out of malice or mismanagement? Just out of their nuts, then?
On the post: Italian Parliament Publishes Draft Internet Bill Of Rights
Re: Re:
On the post: Why A 'Declaration of Digital Human Rights' Gets It Wrong
Digital Human Rights
On the post: UK Teacher Shows Student's Swimsuit Photo From Facebook To Class Assembly To Teach Her A Lesson
Re:
Or maybe it's due to the picture being used "to illustrate the pitfalls of posting private images online" and "to suggest she should be ashamed", not just "the picture being somehow more public".
On the post: UK Crime Agency Boss: 'Yes, The Public Must Give Up Its Liberty If It Wants Security'
Re:
Fixed that for Ben.
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Hits The NY Times
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
FTFY.
On the post: Right To Be Forgotten Hits The NY Times
Re: Re: Re:
That would not make sense even if this was about removing published and true statements --which it is not, no statements are actually going to be removed from anywhere.
On the post: Why The European Commission's Consultation On Corporate Sovereignty Is A Sham (And How To Respond To It Anyway)
Oh, that's so cynical of you!
On the post: Google Asks Users To Demand Congress Pass Real Surveillance Reform
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Google Asks Users To Demand Congress Pass Real Surveillance Reform
Re: Re: Re: GOOGLE?! F-ING PLEASE!!!
No, you did not. Linking to publicly available documents is not "spying" and nobody is asking for restrictions on government doing that.
On the post: Google Asks Users To Demand Congress Pass Real Surveillance Reform
How can that be regarded as "freedom"? Maybe a right, the right to not be ashamed because of your silly past actions from chilhood. It looks like a silly right to me but anyway.
On the post: Spanish Government Bows Down To US Pressures Again, Pushes SOPA-Like Law To Appease Hollywood
Re: Re: Re: Uh... how about spanish artists....
Oh! Dont't worry, he's not being pirated too much. Search the pirate bay for him and you'll know what I'm talking about.
On the post: Google Looks To Cut 'Funding' To 'Illegal' Sites It Doesn't Fund In The First Place
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Horse", then "Cart"...
Next >>