Re: Steve
Oh no, he has a different political view to me, he must be a fucking moron.
2675 publicly visible posts • joined 5 Mar 2007
Strictly speaking, you don't need a license for the actual protocol, which is just words sent down a wire. You could write yuppie own applications that use the activesync protocol with one another. The license is to use the protocol with Microsoft services.
Of course, by writing applications that are compliant with the protocol, you are writing applications that may use Microsoft's services, with the implication that they will eventually be used in that way, and so ms will more than lively requires a license from you.
Anyway, the difference between a protocol and an api is scope. A protocol is language agnostic. An api is the interface for a particular language.
Andrew, in your haste to celebrate thus outcome, you are overlooking the key fact: they copied the api. Not code. Not software. A list of function names.
APIs are now subject to copyright. The means by which software interacts with other siftware is now subject to copyright. The ability to develop an api-compatible implementation of a piece if software, in order to compete in an open market, is now subject to copyright licensing.
If i wanted to make an os to compete with windows, that was compatible with windows api calls so that windows exrcutables could run on it, i would now require a license from microsoft.
If i want to build a phone os that can run android aps, i now have to license the list of function names.
I would require a license from my competitor in order to compete with them.
I really don't think you have grasped what is at stake here.
Three already has their at-home roaming package to a whole bunch of destinations outside the eu. It's one of their USPs, one i found particularly handy when visiting the us. I doubt they'll change out post brexit.
Can't certainly say that for the others, but i suspect they love having customers more than anything else.
Former neo-Nazi has swastika tattoo removed after befriending black police officer.
What do you know, turns out it works after all.
@anothercynic the eea only implements a very small subset of regulations from the eu, most of which aren't even generated by the eu anyway, but rather at the international level, such as at the unece, iso or wto. They have none of the requirements for harmonisation of national policies or regulation of internal markets unrelated to their relationship to the eu. The price is that they have less-than-unfettered access to the single market. However they have nearly none of the tariff and non-tariff barriers that a third country faces when trading with the eu and still have freedom of trade policy with the rest of the world.
Had saner minds prevailed, the first words from May's mouth after her appointment as pm would have been "we are switching to the efta and remaining in the eea until we can work out a complete solution". Unfortunately we are governed by idiots who think, as you say, that they can have their cake and sell it to the highest bidder too.
The customs union is a red herring. All that does is tie us to a common set of tariffs and trading agreements with the rest of the world. It says nothing about trade between its members, as turkey found to its cosy when it joined a customs union with the eu. Trade between turkey and the eu faces significant barriers, both in terms of tariffs and quotas, and in terms of non-tariff barriers such as detailed border inspections and shirty customs officials.
The bit that leads to "frictionless trade", as I think the buzzword us now, is the single market. As an EEA member, Norway is a member of the single market, but not a member of the customs union. The result is that Norway enjoys nearly no barriers to trade with the rest of the EEA, but can set its own trade relationship with the rest of the world, rather than being tired to the common customs code of the customs union.
We aren't.
The ECHR isn't part of the EU. EU member states are independent signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights - by virtue of their membership of the Council of Europe - which establishes the Court amongst other things.
Other notable signatories include Turkey and Russia, for what it's worth.
But regardless, we aren't leaving the ECHR.
Then they should remove twitter. It has the exact same issue of loudmouth trolls and hategroups (like isis) that was used to justify removing gab. If one is against the rules, both are. If one isn't, neither are.
That's the core of gabs case. Google are using their monopoly control of the app market on android to pick winners and losers between otherwise legitimate competitors.