/spg/ - Smartphone General
243 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: ]
If requesting purchasing advice, please provide your country and what carrier you will be using it with, along with wanted features, budget and size.
>reviews, specs, comparisons
>Recommended Chinkphones $80-$300 as of May 2016
>Post a mini-review of your phone
>Discuss upcoming and current models
>Ask for help related to phones
>Tell us how much shekels you spent on good/bad phone
>Shill your Xiaomi
>PRAISE THE CHINKPHONES
>Samsung Galaxy J3 (2017) revealed by TENAA - 5.1" sAMOLED phone
>Samsung Galaxy C7 goes official as well - SD625 SoC, 5.7-inch display, and 4GB RAM
>Acer's 5,000mAh battery totting Liquid Zest Plus to go on sale in July
>Elephone M2 MT6753 1.3 GHz, 3 GB RAM and 32 GB of storage available for $119.99
>OnePlus 3 launch date confirmed for 14th June
>OnePlus 2 and OnePlus X price drop, OnePlus 2 Now Just $299, OnePlus X Now $199
Google’s court victory might kill the GPL
1 more posts in this thread. [Missing image file: ]
Eat shit, freetards.
>The developer community may be celebrating today what it perceives as a victory in Oracle v. Google. Google won a verdict that an unauthorized, commercial, competitive, harmful use of software in billions of products is fair use. No copyright expert would have ever predicted such a use would be considered fair. Before celebrating, developers should take a closer look. Not only will creators everywhere suffer from this decision if it remains intact, but the free software movement itself now faces substantial jeopardy.
>Google's narrative boiled down to this: because the Java APIs have been open, any use of them was justified and all licensing restrictions should be disregarded. In other words, if you offer your software on an open and free basis, any use is fair use.
>If that narrative becomes the law of the land, you can kiss GPL (general public license) goodbye.
>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."