It's repeatedly claimed that Michael favors Ubuntu and is biased towards it. Then you claim he's biased against it, to the point of hating it. Can't have it both ways.
- use the open source code in a closed project (does not prevent in any way using the open source code in open source projects).
- do a closed source fork of the code. This does not "close" the existing code in any way.
Saying "OMG they can close permissively licensed code!!!" is more or less the same as "OMG they could stop contributing to some project!!!"
Edit: I think I see what you were replying to now "anyone in the world can close down MIT software" yeah that statement is a little open for interpretation yes someone can take it and create a closed fork but obviously not just anyone in the world can just close down the current project.
CLA means = "$our_license; 0*"
CLA substitutes and invalidates current license for any license.
If you see "CLA (anything)", you should read "proprietary".
The only point where CLA can be positive, and that at very thin balance, is when - its GPL+CLA.
A company can then for money relicense the software for special project and thus receive income, but the main project is GPL and hence can not be incorporated into proprietary projects directly.
This is not case with MIT/BSD, where they can do what they want without paying to the hoster.
However, because CLA means "anything" and not "anything, but only open source" or not "anything, but only as time job/income source", GPL+CLA can quickly become far more dangerous than BSD/MIT in a case the company decides to relicense the content and revoke the GPL. Because they have the copyright. This is "turn into proprietary at a fraction of a second".
The best license is GPL3+ without any copyright assignments, or LGPL3+ for libraries meant to be dynamically linked.
Not "GPL2 only" stupidity we have in Linux. Through all of its existence, GPU project has improved the GPL license to match the policy of providing four freedoms to the users and did not change anything in its policy.
GPL is a very reliable license. Fullstop.
A tablet or Phone or even Ultrabook will NEVER replace desktops.
Those things have too much limiting screens and input methods to really replace a Desktop....and if they got real big screens (and i'm talking about physical size and not resolution....what matters if a screen is 1920x1080 pixels if is 6" in size with microscopic fonts and/or small amount of text ?!?)...
The hole idea of tablets, smartphones, etc. reminds me of mouse+keyboard vs Gamepads vs that kinetic abortions....mouse+keyboard ( and mouse+gamepad also works OK....i'm making sure of that with a software that i'm doing....but only for Win or WINE...sorry, no LINUX because i'm too lazy and have no info about a language that allows me achieve the same under Linux) are and will continue to be the best controls to play a FPS game for example.
Companies try to reinvent the wheel , but it can't be done....a wheel is a wheel.
There is a place for tablets and smartphones but also for Desktops and it will be that way for a long long long time.
Exactly true. There are still plenty of use cases where desktop computers are necessary and touch interfaces are pure torture. And this is not likely to change in the next decade or two. Programming, development, 3d design, graphic design, digital art, music/sound editing, video editing, etc... the list goes on.
Tablets and smartphones are nice for the things they are used for, but the idea that they could replace all computers is idiotic. Touch interfaces do not scale well beyond about 12", above that they are horrible ergonomically. Touchscreen keyboards will never be as ergonomic as real keyboards, and touch input is less ergonomic than using a mouse, so any work that requires long periods of interacting with an interface will require a) a big enough screen and b) keyboard + mouse.
One could argue that we might get tablets that are powerful enough that if you attach a monitor, keyboard and mouse they could act as desktop computers. But why would we need tablets for that? What benefit could there be to combine two devices of very different purposes into one? That's the dock thing all over again, the reality is it's much easier to have a separate desktop computer and tablet.
It's a much better out-of-the-box experience still very easy to use for new users.