Competition is infringement by their definition.
If you violate a software license you are infringing on copyright, it does not matter if it is a free license or not. The owner of the copyright can seek damages and injunctive relief. See the lawsuits against Fortinet and D-Link in Germany and Cisco in the US.
The whole point of google code is to make code available to the wider OSS community.
They can make the code available to the same people (that is, anyone interested) using google code or github or sourceforge or launchpad or bitbucket or...
I'd have expected google to eat their own dog food.
github instead of google code?
Just like Wikimedia Commons choosing not to offer content from the big film and music industries based on something (like the fact that they don't have a free licence). I'd love to see the MAFFIA whining about Wikimedia censoring them and asking the government to do something about it.
"It has to do with quoting and repurposing facts without adding to the dialog."
Actually they are adding traffic.
"I don't think it was dumped out of malice or even mismanagement. The most shrewd and "vile" reason I can ascribe is that Braben and CO don't want to let people poke or even examine and potentially copy their procedural galaxy simulation."
So they promised a feature they actually did not want to deliver, but not out of malice or mismanagement? Just out of their nuts, then?
How did we manage to survive all this time without phone rights?
It sounds like "on the Internet" in patents to me.
If there is any sort of "humiliation" from this picture then it's due to the picture being somehow more public.
Or maybe it's due to the picture being used "to illustrate the pitfalls of posting private images online" and "to suggest she should be ashamed", not just "the picture being somehow more public".
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, get neither Liberty nor Safety."
Fixed that for Ben.
it's very clear to us in Europe which one is actually restrictad :(
FTFY.
I see no countervailing value in removing published and true statements.
That would not make sense even if this was about removing published and true statements --which it is not, no statements are actually going to be removed from anywhere.
"A cynic might almost think the European Commission is trying to make it hard for the public to participate."
Oh, that's so cynical of you!
I think you can ask Google not to link this page in searches from the EU. That might give you some sense of freedom.
"Got It."
No, you did not. Linking to publicly available documents is not "spying" and nobody is asking for restrictions on government doing that.
"did not include freedom from having your silly past actions from childhood reposted and indexed by google for the rest of your life"
How can that be regarded as "freedom"? Maybe a right, the right to not be ashamed because of your silly past actions from chilhood. It looks like a silly right to me but anyway.
"Wert himself is an author"
Oh! Dont't worry, he's not being pirated too much. Search the pirate bay for him and you'll know what I'm talking about.
No. If the company are claiming than you violate the TOS, then the company is claiming (not just believing) that your activity is unlawful, so the company claims you violate the law. Against what you (or someone called like you) said.
Despite our justice system being advertised as "guilty until proven innocent,"
Come on, things can't be that bad, or are they?