HN user
DO is a data processor under EU data protection law, while the customer would be the data controller. EU data protection law currently (it will change with the new regulations) only imposes legal duties on the data controller. As such, it is the customer's legal problem if it (or its data processor) has failed to handle personal data correctly.
The Register is also rabidly hostile to Wikipedia - and I find it hard not to leap to uncharitable interpretations of their motives (as paid journalists)
Correct - it's not a derivative showing it alongside an article. Derivative refers to making a change to the work itself to create a new work.
It looks like they have already retracted, apologised and offered wine and chocolate via the comments.
I've just read all the claims and everything looks trivial once you realise that this is the basic specification for a repeating delivery system. Can you point to a single aspect of any of the claims that would reasonably be described as novel?
Unfortunately, updateditis thinks that the latest Rails version is 3.2.9
This is a great concept and looks like a classic disruptive innovation play. With the kinds of (large) contracts that I help with, it won't be an option yet, but I look forward to seeing something like this becoming a far more compelling option than the current arbitration offerings.
The Mozilla Public License v2 is a good compromise, as it is less aggressive than the GPL on links (it operates at the file level)