![Android Android](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/android_64.png)
![Google Google](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/google_64.png)
![Open Source Open Source](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/opensource_64.png)
![Linux Linux](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/linux_64.png)
Who's Behind the Google-Linux License Ruckus? 241
jfruhlinger writes "Yesterday, news broke that Android might have a Linux copyright problem, which would be big trouble for Google, already locked in an IP struggle with Oracle over the mobile platform. Blogger Brian Proffitt looks deeper into the alleged violations. He notes that, while it's possible that Google's on shaky ground, the motivations behind the news release are murky: the lawyer who outlined the violation is an ex-Microsoft hand, and the news was widely propagated by gadfly Florian Mueller, who's tangled with Google over patent issues in the past. Moreover, the alleged violations are in header files, and it's not clear that those are copyrightable; if they are, no actual copyright holders have come forward to complain."
No complaints? (Score:2, Informative)
There may be no specific complains yet, but Linus has been quite explicit and unambiguous [lkml.org] in the past about how he thinks the GPL applies to Linux kernel headers:
In short: you do _NOT_ have the right to use a kernel header file (or any other part of the kernel sources), unless that use results in a GPL'd program. ...
BUT YOU CAN NOT USE THE KERNEL HEADER FILES TO CREATE NON-GPL'D BINARIES.
Of course, Linus is not a lawyer, and his interpretation of GPL may not be correct. But the gist of the original story was that it was legal analysis made by an IP lawyer, and he essentially agreed with Linus.
Oh, I know, I know! Linus is a paid Microsoft shill! Right?
Re:No complaints? (Score:5, Informative)
There may be no specific complains yet, but Linus has been quite explicit and unambiguous [lkml.org] in the past about how he thinks the GPL applies to Linux kernel headers:
In short: you do _NOT_ have the right to use a kernel header file (or any other part of the kernel sources), unless that use results in a GPL'd program. ...
BUT YOU CAN NOT USE THE KERNEL HEADER FILES TO CREATE NON-GPL'D BINARIES.
Of course, Linus is not a lawyer, and his interpretation of GPL may not be correct. But the gist of the original story was that it was legal analysis made by an IP lawyer, and he essentially agreed with Linus.
Oh, I know, I know! Linus is a paid Microsoft shill! Right?
Okay, now you're definitely trolling, seeing as we've dealt with that question numerous times, and the COPYING file makes it clear that you CAN use kernel headers to make user-land binaries without triggering the "distribution" clause.
What you can't do is make a closed kernel.
So, since the limitations of the GPL (distribution of source) have been expressly waived for userland programs that only call kernel services, there is NO copyright violation for using the header files in such a fashion, ever.
But keep shilling. It gives more opportunity to refute your arguments.
Re: (Score:3)
The COPYING file you quote makes no mention of kernel headers. It merely says that using the kernel via the mechanism of invoking system calls at runtime is OK.
So, since the limitations of the GPL (distribution of source) have been expressly waived for userland programs that only call kernel services, there is NO copyright violation for using the header files in such a fashion, ever.
That does not follow. There are many possible ways to produce a program that makes system calls into the kernel. The fact that making such system calls is OK does not mean that all ways of producing such a program are OK.
Re: (Score:2)
But keep shilling. It gives more opportunity to refute your arguments.
What's up with this obsession on /. that anyone that says anything that can remotely construed as anti-Linux or pro-MS are paid shills? Can't geeks have an argument in peace without throwing baseless accusations around?
Slashdot did its share of shilling and spreading FUD in the case of Vista DRM etc. and was even publishing results of fake benchmarks against Windows 7.
PS: If anyone from MS reads this, please contact me to pay me for my shilling. Looks like I am missing out on all the actions Thanks. /joke
Re:No complaints? (Score:4, Interesting)
The topic of "shilling" etc is, hopefully, settled in the other thread.
However, I don't quite understand the applicability of the note you've quoted. From the wording, it sounds more like an attempt to disambiguate what "linking" is (or, more generally speaking, what a "derived work" is), in the context of userspace vs kernel. While the consensus has always been that apps written for an OS are not works derived from that OS, even though they directly or indirectly use its syscalls - even Stallman agrees on that, last I checked - the entire topic is rather hazy from a strictly legal perspective. After all, FSF says that dynamically linking to libraries does create a derived work for GPL purposes - and that is not fundamentally different from doing syscalls. In both cases, the client binary doesn't have any machine code derived from the source code of the library/kernel, but only calls with matching names & arguments.
A note like the one you quoted straightens it out: using normal system calls does not make a derived work, even if GPL itself could somehow be interpreted otherwise.
However, the note does not say anything about copyright on the headers. Re-reading the original article (the one before this), it seems that headers in question do actually have the GPL copyright notice in them. In this case, Google stripping that out is definitely wrong, because their process clearly creates a derived work (after all, it does take the original header as input, and applies purely mechanical transformations; I think this is clear cut). As the resulting derived work - the Bionic headers themselves - is not a "userspace binary" (it's not a binary at all!), the exclusion notice in COPYING does not apply to them. However, the notice prevents this from being "viral" - it basically says that userspace apps are not considered derived works by the authors of the kernel at all, regardless of anything else; and thus GPL (or rather copyright itself) simply does not apply.
So it seems to me that "everyone is violating GPL by writing closed-source Android apps" part is FUD, but Google still has some house cleaning to do here to be in the clear - either put the GPL copyright notice back into the headers (with an explanatory note as to why this does not apply to userspace programs including those headers), or else ask the kernel folk to grant them an exception.
Re:No complaints? (Score:4, Informative)
In this case, Google stripping that out is definitely wrong, because their process clearly creates a derived work (after all, it does take the original header as input, and applies purely mechanical transformations; I think this is clear cut).
Courts have held in the United States that technical interfaces are not copyrightable. That includes structure names, layouts, and so on. See here [fenwick.com] (pdf).
So if you take a header file and remove all the copyrightable contents (comments and so forth), what you are left with is technical interface meta data that is not protectable by copyright. That is not likely to go so far as legitimizing copies of non-trivial inline functions, but so far as ordinary manifest constants, structure layouts, and function declarations are concerned, if Baystate v. Bentley Systems (1996) means anything, Google appears to be in the clear.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, Linus is not a lawyer, and his interpretation of GPL may not be correct. But the gist of the original story was that it was legal analysis made by an IP lawyer, and he essentially agreed with Linus.
I'll give you a specific example where Linus is dead wrong. errno.h. This header, from the kernel, is included in almost every Linux user-space program, whether open source or not. (glibc's errno.h includes the kernel's errno.h) If you can provide an example of a kernel header file you think would be a problem to include, please specify it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, according to the FSF, if you dynamically link to a GPL'd library (and that is strictly "using other interface"), the result is derived work. I don't see how kernel is any different.
The original argument for C/C++ was due to you including the header. When people pointed out that a determined developer could just hand-write all function prototypes and type declarations to match, and that in Java and the likes there are no mechanically included headers, Stallman basically said that, so long as the API is
Re: (Score:3)
Google only used the header files with constants and struct defi
Re: (Score:2)
> root privileges on the Git server that maintained the Linux kernel source code
This is a fake story. Linus surely would never give up that easily!
Re: (Score:3)
That is from 2003. It certainly doesn't seem to be Linus complaining about Android. And, I think, that is the point. However Google has been behaving itself it has done so with minimal backlash (there has been some for certain actions, but those have generally been resolved peaceably). In fact Linus seems to be pretty OK with Android. http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2010/02/happy-camper.html [blogspot.com]
So from the fact that his statement on the specific issue of misappropriating Linux Kernel header files made in 2003 he doesn't mention Android in particular, and a blog-post saying he owns an Android phone because he uses it as a GPS unit and some games you conclude that Linus would not mind if they actually do what Florian Müller claims they do?
And Bionic is different from glibc how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the glibc authors obtained permission?
Re:And Bionic is different from glibc how? (Score:4, Interesting)
What I gathered from the previous articles is that Bionic includes headers that are automatically generated from the Linux kernel headers with a statement added by Google that those generated headers contain no copyrightable material. What glibc does is compile against the unmodified Linux kernel headers, which must be present in some directory on the machine doing the build. So glibc includes the kernel headers by means of the C #include preprocessor directive, not by copying text fragments from them into the library package. I haven't looked at the Bionic sources, so I haven't verified this myself; it is based on statements in the articles.
What I wonder is why Google would not simply compile their libc against the Linux kernel source, like glibc does. That would avoid the legal uncertainty. Is there anyone familiar with the Android internals who can shed some light on this?
Re: (Score:2)
What I gathered from the previous articles is that Bionic includes headers that are automatically generated from the Linux kernel headers with a statement added by Google that those generated headers contain no copyrightable material. What glibc does is compile against the unmodified Linux kernel headers, which must be present in some directory on the machine doing the build. So glibc includes the kernel headers by means of the C #include preprocessor directive, not by copying text fragments from them into the library package.
I don't think it matters whether you #include or redistribute. If it does indeed work as you describe, then it sounds like glibc binary would be GPL'd (or so FSF says). But I've checked the license on the corresponding (binary) package in Fedora, and it's LGPL. Interesting.
Re:And Bionic is different from glibc how? (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, this guy is a lawyer, and he understands copyright law more than me, but his understanding of this particular issue is weak. The example given earlier, of the bytewaps, does not apply at all to any developers on ARM because that was x86 specific code.
His second argument is extremely weak. He says the API is also copyrightable (which is sometimes true), and that if it were not, someone could use it to re-implement a closed source version of Linux. Which is true, but it's a rather braindead thing to worry about: getting the API is not the hardest part of that (and indeed, BSD has a linux compatibility layer that responds correctly to the Linux APIs).
More noise from Microsoft, obviously (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It is not defending Microsoft btw - there is enough *direct* evidence that they deser
Others pointing fingers... (Score:4, Insightful)
Florian Mueller? (Score:5, Insightful)
Florian Mueller has zero credibility left.
Remember? He was the guy who claimed that Android included source stolen from Oracle's Java. After getting enormous publicity the whole thing was debunked:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/oops-no-copied-java-code-or-weapons-of-mass-destruction-found-in-android/2162 [zdnet.com]
So, why are we still listening to him? There are millions of voices on the Internet, shouldn't we listen to one of the ones that still has credibility?
Re: (Score:2)
That's going a bit far.
1) He is honest about who he is - no anonymous astroturfing. He posts something and defends his views on the public internet. Someone with no credibility would not do so. PJ accused him of being paid by MS and he did not (admit or) deny this.
2) His arguments have changed over time, and I agree that he tends to be more and less vocal in ways that imply someone is directing his energy rather than personal passion reacting to events. However his arguments make moderate sense - I thin
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's the feeling I get too. He believes something but does not have the depth of understanding to either argue about it effectively or for me to trust that he has avoided mistakes in coming to his beliefs.
Incidentally, why did you post anonymously?
please ignore this scare tactic... (Score:2)
Well, what bionic does with headers is arguably questionable, but nothing half as questionable as the oracle stuff. But the idea that you can claim copyright on header files is a bit bizarre. Header files are supposed to be a definition of an interface, not an implementation. So if you want anything to work on your system, you'd best not claim copyright over your headers.
But the idea that android app developers have to comply with the GPLv2 because of headers that interface between two and one layers below
Google not pursuing GPL Copyright Violations (Score:2)
of much more serious concern - to google - is the fact that they are *knowingly* not pursuing GPL Copyright Infringement cases against Android-Linux GPL violators. if you fail to pursue a Copyright violation, it can be argued that you have "no interest" in protecting the Copyrighted material. as it is not in google's interests to pursue copyright violations because that would reduce the number of google android systems in the world, thus affecting their bottom line by reducing advertising income, they're
Re: (Score:2)
What Google is Really Doing Wrong (Score:3)
OK, I know this is going to get voted way down as a troll attempt or something, but seriously--the real thing Google is doing wrong is using Linux. Since they want Android to be licensed as much as possible under more open licenses (they used Apache 2 for nearly all of their original code), they should have went with a BSD kernel. There's no real technical advantage to Linux over BSD in this kind of application, and it would sidestep all risk of this kind of potential license problem.
Same for all the various router manufacturers, set top box makers, TV makers, and so on that have run into GPL problems. I have no idea why no one has made something like BusyBox, but built around BSD and similarly licensed software.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree because I vastly prefer the BSD license to the GPL.
I disagree because it would be abused by phone manufacturers. Proprietary kernel changes? Closed drivers? Fuck that.
Right now Android is in a precarious balancing act which actually seems to work. GPLed driver development means any off-the-shelf phones can be ported to run on non-stock kernel builds (assuming the phone is unlocked). BSDed userspace APIs means manufacturers adopt and develop for Android because they can keep their app and library cod
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
OK, I know this is going to get voted way down as a troll attempt or something, but seriously--the real thing Google is doing wrong is using Linux. Since they want Android to be licensed as much as possible under more open licenses (they used Apache 2 for nearly all of their original code), they should have went with a BSD kernel. There's no real technical advantage to Linux over BSD in this kind of application, and it would sidestep all risk of this kind of potential license problem.
Same for all the various router manufacturers, set top box makers, TV makers, and so on that have run into GPL problems. I have no idea why no one has made something like BusyBox, but built around BSD and similarly licensed software.
If you have no idea why everybody else is doing something, you should find suspect perhaps they know something you don't.
In this case, there is a huge technical advantage to using Linux over BSD. Where to start? First, Linux has far, far more drivers for the hardware you need on mobile devices. And a lot more people know how to write such drivers, so it's far easier to hire someone to write a new one for you. Second, Linux has enormous resources poured into it from multiple corporations and independent cont
Re: (Score:2)
isn't this completely irrelevant anyway? (Score:2)
Richard Stallman (Score:2)
Well, this is the world he wanted to create with the viral nature of the GPL, i hope everyone is happy with it. And no, I'm not flaming him, its what he wanted and its what he got, for better or for worse.
Re: (Score:2)
If you repeat this thought enough times, people will start to believe it. Too bad it is a big lie, what Richard wants is for free to remain free, that is all.
Re: (Score:2)
If you repeat this thought enough times, people will start to believe it. Too bad it is a big lie, what Richard wants is for free to remain free, that is all.
You and the parent post agree, you just fail to understand his point.
Re: (Score:2)
...except most of the important stuff is not "pure GPL". It's LGPL and that lessens the viral impact of things considerably.
oh noes (Score:2)
Isn't it expected when you're successful? (Score:2)
Google's going to be attacked by everyone right now, consider the fact that their Android mobile OS is very successful in the marketplace, their market share is up, and current projections are that they'll overtake the competition within just the next few years. All of their competitors are going to try to stop them by whatever means they can, even if that means using the courts, right or wrong, with or without evidence or a solid case against them.
Look at what happened to Apple's iPhone4, with the possible
Re: (Score:2)
That's really not analogous. People attacked Apple over the death grip thing because they were claiming that it didn't exist and tried to pawn it off on other issues. On top of that they were outed over not properly testing the device in the first place. Testing a phone's reception while housed in a disguise is hardly what any reasonable person would consider real world testing.
Plus, wasn't RIM the maker with the largest user base during that period?
Re:He's still right in pointing it out (Score:5, Informative)
Do they have a case? [zdnet.com]
This is just more FUD being generated by Microsoft's shills.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And, ISTM, it wasn't that long ago that everyone around here was up in arms, saying headers couldn't be copyrighted, when SCO tried to claim infringement by Linux header files - saying there was copyrighted content taken from UNIX. <confused>Which is it, or does it depend on who's ox is getting gored?</confused>
Re: (Score:2)
Header files are rather useless by themselves, and claiming copyright infringement only because they are referred to when building your binary is counterproductive.
In that case almost every application written is guilty of copyright infringement.
And is it a copyright infringement if you include stuff that is intended to be included when building a binary?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:He's still right in pointing it out (Score:4, Interesting)
This is just more FUD being generated by Microsoft's shills.
And though it's intended effect is to tarnish Google's image/brand consumers really don't give a shit. They're going to buy an Android phone if they want one despite any copyright issues or what could turn out to be platform propaganda.
I think this is W7P's first shot across Android bow.
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt that Google's the target here. It's more likely that the developers of apps that use Bionic are the target.
If targetting android means that a developer might lose the rights to the source code to her million dollar game, I think that she would think twice before targetting android.
Re: (Score:3)
FUD! The developer does not "lose the rights to the source code to her million dollar game".
If this bull (which is what it is) about the header files was true, the developer would be guilty of copyright infringement. The only legal recourse is a monetary damages, paid to the copyright holder, and cease and desist in distributing the infringing content. In no way whatsoever, despite the incessant FUD from Microsoft that it happens, can anybody ever be "forced to release their code". Anybody who says anything
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have references to court cases where there's been a GPL infringement (by including GPL code in a closed source project) where the infringing product was simply forced to pay monetary damages and wasn't also required to also publish their source code? All of the GPL infringement cases I've heard about have ended up with the infringing party being forced to release their modifications to the code.
I know of several IP lawyers who believe that simply using GPL'ed headers in a project can cause the entir
Re: (Score:3)
Violating the GPL means you are doing copyright infringement. It might be unclear whether or not you are violating the GPL, but if you are you are doing copyright infringement. Read up on it someday. Obeying a license after the fact does not get you out of the infringement, so there is no way what soever that disobeying the GPL "forces you to release your source code". You are in a civil liability suit.
It is possible to agree with the copyright holders to avoid the suit. Maybe you agree to release your sour
Re: (Score:3)
Yes you need to redistribute your code in order to comply with the GPL license. But it is a license that says "I am going to allow you to violate copyright laws on this material if you do this special thing".
If you don't follow the license, you are VIOLATING COPYRIGHT LAWS. You are liable for monetary fines and cease and desist orders. I challenge you to point out the part of US (or any country's) copyright laws that says "oh you can get out of your infringement for free by redistributing your source code".
Re: (Score:2)
And though it's intended effect is to tarnish Google's image/brand consumers really don't give a shit. They're going to buy an Android phone if they want one despite any copyright issues or what could turn out to be platform propaganda.
"Going to buy an Android phone" doesn't mean "don't give a shit". I'm a Google and Android customer (and a very nice phone it is too) and it irks me when I hear that Google isn't "playing nice" precisely because I am a customer. I'm much more annoyed when I hear that a company that has my support is misbehaving than one I don't do much business with anyway. In this case, there's FUD in that I don't think it affects the apps the way the article claims, but if Google have been stripping the licences off he
Some headers may be copyrightable (Score:2)
Re:He's still right in pointing it out (Score:5, Informative)
This is not about userspace API headers (which are partially defined by POSIX spec, but partially Linux specific, by the way).
This is about kernel headers. Their content is not defined by any standard.
You're wrong. This is about a cleaned-up header file that lets user-space programs call kernel services, as permitted by the COPYING file (a non-standard modified version of the GPL that specifically says user-space programs can call kernel services without invoking the "derived works" clause) that comes with the linux kernel source code.
And the content of the cleaned-up file IS stuff defined by POSIX or other standards, structures, etc. This is not about including chunks of the kernel in user-space programs.
Astro-turf much?
(okay, you might have made an honest mistake, but wouldn't it have been easy to check first?)
Re:He's still right in pointing it out (Score:4, Informative)
You're wrong. This is about a cleaned-up header file that lets user-space programs call kernel services, as permitted by the COPYING file (a non-standard modified version of the GPL that specifically says user-space programs can call kernel services without invoking the "derived works" clause) that comes with the linux kernel source code.
You're right, and I stand corrected.
Is it the same exception that permits glibc (which necessarily uses those headers) to not require linking apps to be GPL?
okay, you might have made an honest mistake, but wouldn't it have been easy to check first?
You must be... uhhh... nevermind. Off your lawn. ~
Re: (Score:2)
Had you been around here terribly long, you'd know that it is intended to be that way. If people could edit comments, they could backtrack and do other trollish things. It supposedly outweighs the detriments.
Re: (Score:2)
What about allowing people to only add text to the comments at the end and then that text gets marked with a timestamp as an edit? You could clarify things about the text above and avoid the problem that you stated.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to be kidding everyone. Go look at the headers. You sound ridiculous. There's no case here, and having this FUD spread by ex-microsoft guys with someone else assisting that's been at war with Google for some time shows you shouldn't put any stock in them. And, if someone wants to challenge Google over copyright over some headers then let them. It's hardly an issue. It is hardly a challenge.
My goodness you should like chicken little.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree (Score:4, Funny)
All 3 Windows 7 phones have no malware (yet).
Re: (Score:2)
Those 3 people have 10,000 apps to use though...growed faster than Android or iOS stores, silly Slashdot with it's anti-MS bias and tunnel vision from reading only the posted news and comments.
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/cell-phones/windows-phone-marketplace-fastest-to-hit-10000-app-milestone/5596 [zdnet.com]
http://wpcentral.com/milestone-windows-phone-marketplace-hits-10-000-will-overtake-rim-6-months [wpcentral.com]
Re:He's still right in pointing it out (Score:4, Insightful)
So what if it's an ex-Microsoft hand pointing it out? He still seems to be correct.. Even if he would have something in mind when pointing it out, it doesn't change the fact.
True, and if the ex-Microsoft exaggerates the issue then it is still a troll. Note that the best trolls always contain some grain of truth. I finally got around to reading the brownrudnick whitepaper-looking-thingy on this issue. It smacks of troll. It fails to convince me that Google's kernel header sanitizing process is different in nature from what is done to create libc kernel headers, without which userspace applications would have a tough time interfacing to the kernel.
On the other hand, I am convinced that Google did itself and our community a disservice by failing to do the obvious thing and consult with the kernel community on this question beforehand. Simply posting a link to the sanitized kernel headers to lkml would have done wonders. Google displays more than a small amount of arrogance in its handling of this and other important community issues. I do not think that is a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
You know, there are two licensing-related problems Google is facing now with Android: the Oracle lawsuit, and now this. Both seem to have at least partially arisen because Google didn't float stuff past people who have interests in the technologies they chose to use. It makes me wonder if there was some development going on behind closed doors back when Schmidt was on Apple's board, but it was kept hush-hush to keep from letting Apple know what they were up to.
Re:He's still right in pointing it out (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, there are two licensing-related problems Google is facing now with Android: the Oracle lawsuit, and now this. Both seem to have at least partially arisen because Google didn't float stuff past people who have interests in the technologies they chose to use.
This is unfair to Google. I have plenty of gripes with Android, but these two were not Google's fault. First, nobody considered the header files to be copyrightable material. As one poster above pointed out, people in the FOSS community laughed when SCO made such a claim just a few years ago. If it was not an issue then, how can Google be wrong now? They did not exactly strip out the copyright notices in the kernel source and call it the "Android Kernel®", did they?
In the case of the Java problem, Google could not have anticipated that Sun would be bought by a hostile company that would try to rob them using copyrights. Sun, for all its faults, was pretty reasonable about Java. The new owner, on the other hand, is predatory and crooked. They see an opportunity to hit Google up for some cash, and they are taking it. To blame Google for being a victim of lawyers would be like blaming victims of a natural disaster for living in a place where no natural disasters had struck yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling Windows Phone 7 "mature" is like calling MS-DOS 2.0 mature when compared to the CLI used in any version of Unix at that time. You must have a hard time speaking when setting.
Re: (Score:2)
viablos is a sock puppet use for MS astroturfing, ignore him.
Re: (Score:2)
Mr. Viablos,
I am a frequent commenter on Slashdot, Digg, Reddit, and many other sites frequented by technology opinion leaders. I am also very poor, have no scruples, but with excellent persuasive writing skills.
Can you please put me in touch with some folks looking for people like me to act as insightful and frequent contributors to praise and defend companies and their products? I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
Floyd Markian
Re: (Score:2)
Devices are not locked. Though it will cost you your warranty, you are able to unlock your bootloader.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Duh. viablos has at least five other accounts [slashdot.org].
His hypocrisy is amazing: in one article saying OSS sucks, in this one he says Android should be 'more open' (while claiming WP7 is better... lol), at one time he says he's not a shill, yet in the next article he makes his fifteenth first post promoting Microsoft.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The only thing unsubstantiated here is your post. Anyone who has noticed his little /. ritual - posting within a minute of the story hitting the front page, and bringing up Microsoft even when it's unrelated to the topic - can easily associate all of his accounts. His posts are usually correct half the time - which is why people step out to defend him - but they always are (a) defending Microsoft at every turn, (b) criticizing any of Microsoft's competitors, or (c) defending corporate interests (such as a
Re: (Score:3)
And people wonder why I don't 'out' the paid shills. There are several here. Watch the names and attitudes when an anti-FOSS, Apple, Google or pro-Microsoft post comes out.
They line up, either side of the fence, draw an arrow from the quivver, then take bead on the perceived threat..... and often miss.
I wish I had the time to do a spider on slashdot, sort the topics, rate them, then sort users vs bias, speed of reply, and thread extension. Might make for some interesting results.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not an AC and I agree with the GP. If android should be more open how is WP7 better?
viablos is at best a troll and at worst a paid shill.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not an AC and I agree with the GP. If android should be more open how is WP7 better?
'open' is not the only measurement that determines better?
I prefer OSS, but its pretty far down on my list of reasons for choosing a product since its unlikely I'm going to do any source hacking, regardless of the fact that I can and do by profession.
Drives people from GPL, not FOSS (Score:4, Insightful)
And every time issues like this come out, it drives people further away from developing Open Source alternatives. They think "If Google is having this much trouble, we'll get sued in to bankruptcy!"
Not quite. Replace "Open Source" with "GPL". There is no such fear among users of BSD and comparable licenses. I'm not saying the GPL is bad, I am just saying that there are costs associated with everything. If your license is viral, restrictive or ideological then its adoption will be impeded to some degree despite any idealistic motivations.
Re: (Score:2)
Which explains why BSD is so much more popular than Linux, right?
I humbly suggest you go check out netcraft.
Re: (Score:2)
Which explains why BSD is so much more popular than Linux, right? I humbly suggest you go check out netcraft.
That's a straw man. The GP said that issues like these drive people away from open source. I pointed out that not all open source has these issues. My point stands.
Re: (Score:2)
Lets see ... Combine the metrics of FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and their forks ... and don't forget to include the big one ... OS X. Yea, BSD is slightly more popular than Linux. I humbly suggest YOU go check out netcraft ...
Re: (Score:2)
I see. And would you characterise your support for BSD licenses as... ideological?
Perhaps you should reread what you replied to:
And every time issues like this come out, it drives people further away from developing Open Source alternatives.
Anything that drives people away from GPL sources also drives people away from Open Source licenses, if you agree that the GPL is an open source license.
I can understand that you might be merely trying to add specificity to that comment, but please read what you are replying to one more time:
And every time issues like this come out, it drives people further away from developing Open Source alternatives.
If you can concede that being able to use a mature existing codebase is one of the main rea
Re: (Score:2)
I see. And would you characterise your support for BSD licenses as... ideological?
So pointing out that a legal issue is GPL specific and does not affect open source is general is ideological. That's an interesting perspective.
If you can concede that being able to use a mature existing codebase is one of the main reason people use open source code in their projects ...
BSD offers a mature code base.
... and if you concede that a large amount of open source code is only available under the GPL, then it follows that anyone who wants to develop something related to said GPL-only code, would be dissuaded from developing an open source project at all.
No. The condition that someone wants to develop something related to GPL'd code is fallacious. The original post mentioned open source in general, source code utilizing other licenses can be used. For example while Google chose GPL based code Apple, Sun, etc chose BSD based code.
What copyright holders? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Brian Proffitt blog spells it out nicely. The bionic library has standard header files. That's the API definition, not copyrightable sorry. So, even though glibc has very similar header files, using the same names and everything, Bionic did not steal anything from glibc. They simply implement the same API, so they must, by definition, have the essentially the same header files.
Nothing to see here, move along. But before you do, read the blog. I'd score it a 5 if it were on slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Header files also contain macros and inline functions, which go far beyond mere API.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is using software from MS any less risky? It isn't like MS products haven't contained illegally copied code in the past.
Worse yet. They may choose to discontinue the product and all support for it or break it with an update -- as they have done repeatedly in the past. If Google discontinues Android, any or all of the companies currently distributing it can continue as before. Google cannot pull the plug on Android. WinPhone7 can be destroyed whenever MS chooses.
And all that is assuming that it will be usable enough for anyone to care. If older versions of Windows Mobile and WinCE are any indication, no one will.
As
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they don't complain now, they could complain later on
So much for the theory that viablos is FM. I'm pretty sure that Florian knows about doctrine of laches [lectlaw.com], and won't bother to post such ignorant nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
"However, a failure to bring a timely infringement suit or action against a known infringer may give the defendant a defense of implied consent or estoppel when suit is finally brought."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, but that's not true in the USofA (Australia, too, IIRC). Although the facts themselves are not copyrightable, specific aggregates of those facts are.
A 'phone book's copyright is held by the "person" publishing the book. In Australia, the case involved aggregation of TV schedules (the schedule entries were "facts", but the aggregated schedule was a "work"). Various data aggregations are sold by businesses, and a few government agencies, and those aggregations have copyrights.
Re: (Score:2)
That's incorrect. See FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TEL. SERVICE CO for a case which deals with precisely this issue (and is widely quoted when someone brings this up.)
Re: (Score:3)
Copyright law, and precedent. Header files are often functional descriptions of an API, without any creative element. Take for instance all the noise that SCO made about errno.h--a list of error numbers and names is not copyrightable because there is no creative element, the entire thing is driven by the functional requirement and is no more than data about errors.
This of course doesn't mean that no header files can be protected by copyright, just that the kind of material that is generally found in header
Re:What I'd like to see with the GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
is simply this... when a new version of the GPL comes out and you wish to continue using the GPL, all future licensed software must be released under the new GPL license. GPL 3 is amazing, but too few people are using it.
First, the GPL forbids that sort of restriction.
Second, what if some future version of the GPL contains something that makes it less free?
Third, the GPL v3 has some flaws. Android wouldn't be commercially possible if linux were GPL v3.
Re: (Score:2)
Please do explain why android could not exist with a GPL v3 kernel. Tivoization is not necessary, nor is it a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
is simply this... when a new version of the GPL comes out and you wish to continue using the GPL, all future licensed software must be released under the new GPL license. GPL 3 is amazing, but too few people are using it.
First, the GPL forbids that sort of restriction.
Second, what if some future version of the GPL contains something that makes it less free?
Third, the GPL v3 has some flaws. Android wouldn't be commercially possible if linux were GPL v3.
Is Linux getting any benefit from Android? The public doesn't even know it's based on Linux. Maybe Maemo and Meego give things back because they are like mobile distros but Android and Chrome OS?
Re: (Score:3)
is simply this... when a new version of the GPL comes out and you wish to continue using the GPL, all future licensed software must be released under the new GPL license. GPL 3 is amazing, but too few people are using it.
Great idea, what could possibly go wrong with giving an ideological organization a blank check to do whatever they want with your work.
Want to use GPL 3, go ahead, but you would be wise to delete any "version 3 or any future version" type of language. Wait to see what that future version actually contains and make sure its goals are in line with your goals. Giving blind faith to the FSF seems equivalent to giving blind faith to a church. Do so if you like but at least be aware of your "follower" nature.
Re: (Score:2)
While this advice is reasonable if there are very few contributors to a project, it doesn't work at all for large projects. By chosing only GPL vX, you have basically made it impossible for you to ever select a later version of the GPL unless you can get all contributors to sign off. But
Re: (Score:2)
While this advice is reasonable if there are very few contributors to a project, it doesn't work at all for large projects. By chosing only GPL vX, you have basically made it impossible for you to ever select a later version of the GPL unless you can get all contributors to sign off. But then again, some consider that to be a feature.
For a large project one could create an organization that would hold the copyright of the entire project. Contributors being required to grant non-exlcusive rights to this group. With this project being GPL'd one should be able to incorporate updates made by others to your original contribution in your own personal GPL'd projects. I'm not sure what the downside of such a scheme would be but I'm sure some kind soul out there could enlighten me. It does not seem terribly different from the FSF's suggestion of
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. The issue is that now you are putting faith in an organization to "do the right thing", an organization which has far more power to alter licensing terms than the FSF does. (After all, the FSF is unable to take away rights granted by a previous version of the GPL, whereas the copyright holder can.)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing to do with Microsoft being uncool and everything to with them being a habitual law-breaker. When Google have a similar shady past then I'm sure they'll take just as much shit as Microsoft deservedly do now.
Re: (Score:2)
its not hard, but (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Aww, did the little Microsoft fanboys get offended (and got mod points to boot)?
Ah well. :p
Re: (Score:2)
Guys, can't you see a bogus claim whenerver you see it? Using header files for developing userland software IS allowed by GPL without being necessary to license the application code as GPL. EXPLICITLY!!!!
Can you point out where the GPL explicitly says anything about header files or userland software? Here [gnu.org] is the text of the license, for the sake of convenience.
(There is a copyright notice distributed with the Linux kernel, but it's an extra on top of GPL, and is kernel specific.)