[clug] Vaguely off topic: iPeds and other Android tablets - availability and comparisons to that Apple one

[Michael Still]

On 8/5/10 4:54 PM, Ivan Lazar Miljenovic wrote:
> On 5 August 2010 16:47, Robert Edwards<bob at cs.anu.edu.au>  wrote:
>>
>> Yet another example of Apple and their accolytes muddying the waters as
>> to what constitutes "free". If I want to develop apps for _my_ CPU in
>> _my_ phone that _I_ purchased (assuming that I had one, which I don't)
>> then I would need to pay money and sign up with "the man".
>>
>> If I don't pay the money and sign up, then I can develop all I like,
>> but I can't upload anything to _my_ CPU in _my_ (hypothetical) phone.
>>
>> This is not "free". It may not be the case that "it's impossible to
>> install apps except through the Apple Store", but it is the case that
>> it is not possible (sans jail-breaking the phone, which may or may
>> not now be legal in the U.S.) to install apps on the iPhone without
>> Apple's endorsement and signing up with them (which I object to on
>> principle and it's not "free").
>
> Exactly; and I also find this hypocritical of companies like Apple
> that will leach off of FOSS projects (the kernel in OSX, KHTML, etc.)
> but don't play allow others to have the same privilege when it comes
> to their actual products.

If they're complying with the licenses of the components they're using, 
what's the problem? You didn't (I assume) write the kernel or khtml, so 
how is it up to you to decide how they're used? The author did that in 
selecting a license, and is therefore presumably satisfied with the outcome.

Also, apple has contributed plenty of webkit code back, so I think you 
need to remove khtml from your list there.

Mikal