If they owned 100% of the copyright, then it still wouldn't matter. The GPL gives additional permissions, along with some restrictions / obligations, to Licensees. As copyright holder you are not a Licensee.
You do not need to grant yourself a license to distribute your own works. You always had that right.
Besides, who would sue you? The only person who has standing is the copyright holder. You're gonna sue yourself because you failed to honor the terms of a license, which was granted from yourself to yourself?
The justification usually given for AGPL is to prevent other companies from running paid SaaS without sharing their modifications. The actual terms is that any user who interacts with the software over the network must be able to download the sources. It doesn't say anything about whether the service is paid or free.
I think the argument of FOSS people who don't like it would be something like, as a user, just running the software on my machine can potentially create a legal obligation to set up source distribution, if, like, I forgot to block a port.
1) RoboVM had to use the GPL license because they used other people's GPL code - which they presumably pulled out / rewrote themselves in their new closed-source version
or
2) the author mistakenly believes that RoboVM is bound to the terms of the GPL license, or forced to offer new GPL licenses, on code they own 100%, just because they have offered GPL licenses to other people in the past
I donated two of them to my parents who used them until one died a few months ago. They live in the boonies so, they only get 10mbps internet but wanted good coverage for a decently sized house + garage, so I set one up as repeater.
But I wouldn't use it myself anymore, unlike my parents I don't have mid 2000's internet speeds, and I stream games, movies and take backups over wifi.
You don't need to own a pickup truck just because you need to haul or tow things three of five times per year. You can own a more economical car and rent a pickup if / when you need it.
I wasn't able to find actual data on his performance, what I found is that: "Cascade does not publicly disclose its performance results". If someone has actual numbers I'd be happy to see them.
By managers I mean professional portfolio managers.
Individual investors pretty much all do worse than market.
EDIT: obviously that means there is skill involved. But it seems that professional managers are close enough in skill that luck is the dominant factor.
About one third of managers beat the market. The problem is that there is no correlation between year-to-year performance of managers: the manager who beat the market this year is no more likely to beat it next year than any other manager.
The Shield is 1900x1200, the Switch will run at 720p in mobile mode, for "performance reasons". Pretty sure they mean for battery life reasons. It will push out 1080p when docked so it's not like the GPU can't handle it.
Yeah that's an excellent point. The Nvidia Shield (Tegra K1) can pull 15-20 watts while gaming. I can play hearthstone for like 3 hours when plugged in.
5V usb port at 2.1A = 10.5W = battery gets drained even when plugged in.
It has a 20Whr battery, if I'm at 90%, and I'm wary of draining it below 10%, that leaves me with 16Whr = an hour at most of gaming on battery alone, on a brand new full capacity battery.
You do not need to grant yourself a license to distribute your own works. You always had that right.
Besides, who would sue you? The only person who has standing is the copyright holder. You're gonna sue yourself because you failed to honor the terms of a license, which was granted from yourself to yourself?
If they didn't own 100%, then see 1).