Lawyer Continues Android v. GPL Crusade 155
jfruhlinger writes "Edward Naughton has been insisting for months that Android violates the GPL because Google created a new set of Linux kernel headers that it hasn't released the source code for, despite the fact that it incorporates open source code. While numerous commentators, including those who helped write the kernel headers, claimed this code isn't copyrightable, Naughton in persisting in his crusade, saying that the questions need to be resolved in court for the good of the open source movement."
...unless he has a patch in there (Score:5, Interesting)
Only the copyright holders have legal standing - and they've already said its all good.
Have all of them said it's all good? Linux doesn't use copyright assignments, and I was under the impression that Edward Naughton might represent someone who has had at least one patch accepted.
Headers are Facts (Score:4, Interesting)
Tilting at windmills? (Score:4, Interesting)
Aren't the bionic headers included with the Android source? I wonder who his clients are. I don't think he's wacky but he's certainly chasing a whole lot of nothing.
Re:No legal standing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Tilting at windmills? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:No legal standing (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Tilting at windmills? (Score:4, Interesting)
Which rulings concerning copyright in Oracle vs Google? To my knowledge there has not been a ruling yet concerning this subject and I don't recall seeing one on groklaw.