Thomas Friedman, American Intellectual

VERBATIM

I think it [the invasion of Iraq] was unquestionably worth doing, Charlie. …
We needed to go over there, basically, um, and um, uh, take out a very big stick right in the heart of that world and burst that bubble, and there was only one way to do it. …

What they needed to see was American boys and girls going house to house, from Basra to Baghdad, um and basically saying, “Which part of this sentence don’t you understand?”

You don’t think, you know, we care about our open society, you think this bubble fantasy, we’re just gonna let it grow?

Well Suck. On. This.

Okay.

That Charlie was what this war was about. We could’ve hit Saudi Arabia, it was part of that bubble. We coulda hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could. That’s the real truth.

Google’s Court Victory Might Kill the GPL

I’m no fan or Oracle, but their attorney makes a serious point…

Op-ed: Oracle Attorney Says Google’s Court Victory Might Kill the GPL (arstechnica.com) 278
Posted by manishs on Saturday May 28, 2016 @07:30PM from the the-other-side-of-the-coin dept.

Annette Hurst, an attorney at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe who represented Oracle in the recent Oracle v. Google trial, has written an opinion piece for Ars Technica in which she urges developers and creators to not celebrate Google’s win in the hard-fought copyright case as the decision — if remains intact — is poised to make them “suffer” everywhere and also the free software movement itself “now faces substantial jeopardy.” As you’re aware, in a verdict earlier this week, a federal court announced that Google’s Android operating system didn’t infringe on Oracle-owned copyrights because its re-implementation of 37 Java APIs is protected by “fair use.” Hurst writes:

No business trying to commercialize software with any element of open software can afford to ignore this verdict. Dual licensing models are very common and have long depended upon a delicate balance between free use and commercial use. Royalties from licensed commercial exploitation fuel continued development and innovation of an open and free option. The balance depends upon adherence to the license restrictions in the open and free option.

This jury’s verdict suggests that such restrictions are now meaningless, since disregarding them is simply a matter of claiming “fair use.” It is hard to see how GPL can survive such a result. In fact, it is hard to see how ownership of a copy of any software protected by copyright can survive this result. Software businesses now must accelerate their move to the cloud where everything can be controlled as a service rather than software. Consumers can expect to find decreasing options to own anything for themselves, decreasing options to control their data, decreasing options to protect their privacy.

https://yro.slashdot.org/story/16/05/28/1730242/op-ed-oracle-attorney-says-googles-court-victory-might-kill-the-gpl