Slashdot Mirror
Lawyer Continues Android v. GPL Crusade
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."
Only the copyright holders have legal standing - and they've already said its all good. Naughton should know that, but that never stopped anyone who wants to do damage by creating FUD.
Obviously he would like to see it being resolved in court... it's a lawyer.
In a case where neither plaintiff nor accused are interested in this, the lawyer is the only person who could possibly win!
one of the troll leaders!
http://www.brownrudnick.com/bio/bio.asp?ID=512&ForwdName=Edward+J.+Naughton
Quick, we need a DM to start a campaign against this troll!
-AI
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
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.
Where do I donate to him?
I loved him in American History X
SCO tried to cornhole Linux over errno.h being similar to BSD. SCO lost for the same reason and also because they suck. Unless they abused headers to jam in a bunch of functions that might be "creative" (and that would be their content anyway), the headers should just be lists of facts.
In the USA, we like stuff watered down, like beer, television, and freedom.
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.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
...he recorded the classic 70s disco hit "Makin' It"!!!
Did he at least buy you dinner first?
He should stick to acting.
The simple fact that he is declaring that a court should make the declaration is within his rights, even if he stands to gain nothing from his crusade. This includes pursuit in spite of speculation that, since he has nothing to gain from this and has no interest connected to him, it will likely be dismissed outright.
This sig no verb.
Erm, why would you assume he wanted to eat you doggy style rather than, say, fuck you doggy style or fuck you up the pooper?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Minor nit: it;s Darl, not Darryl. And the world is full of like-minded sociaopaths like McBride; the RIAA and MPAA are full of them (as is every boardroom in every corporation).
I wonder if Microsoft or Apple are secretly funding this guy, like MS funded SCO?
Free Martian Whores!
He has no standing, there is no plaintiff and no defendant. Doesn't his Bar Association have rules about bringing the profession into disrepute?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
he's going The Distance
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
You can make a new phone book, it can look different but the information inside it must still be the same and it would not be infringing any copyrights. Headers files are the same, you can dress them up any way you want but they still must define everything the same way or everything else will break.
No, this is a different guy.
this guy was in fight club.
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
this lawyer doesn't really understand programming - even his understanding of copyright is only enough to make him dangerous. he states, for instance, that a byteswap macro, because it is clever, is copyrightable. it's not: whole works are copyrightable. further, the license for the work in question explicitly states that the headers constitute the interface at which the license stops.
there is no issue here. lawyer is trying to make business for himself and others of his species.
It doesn't matter if he has legal standing or not. It's far more probable that he is looking for "victims" so that he can represent them. He's just looking for work.
regret to inform you that being against the Crusades is illegal now
In the UK, lawyers are not supposed to comment on cases in which they are not involved. This is precisely to prevent touting for business like this. Do American bar associations not have similar provisions?
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Copyright is not a democracy and laws are meant for protecting minorities.
If the headers are merely an experession of documented standards like the SVR4 and BSD compatability macros, then I don't see how it could possibly be copyrightable. The whole point of standards is to share them, not own them.
But I could see a copyright troll trying to take the interpretation that they are copyrightable, as happened with the timezone data.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Another useless lawyer with an agenda. What else is new ...
Anyone with a brain can see that Google is ripping off FOSS and doesn't give a shit about returning anything back to the community. Android IS a proprietary implemantation of the LInux kernel and shouldn't be considered part of the GNU/Linux community.
He's acting like TdR too.
The header definitions aren't copyrightable, but the comments are.
Therefore if you only copy the header definitions, you have not committed copyright infringement.
This dude is just trying to scare people off the GPL. He's probably a BSD fan.
the GPL doesn't simply require the source code to be published for each modified version of software that is distributed, it also ask that this source of modified versions comes with the same freedom of modification that the original saoftware came with.
so if you get some GPL software, modify it and distribute it, you need to publish th modified code as GPL too.
but bionic is published under the same BSD-like license as the rest of android. So it would follow the GPL requirement.
except that, GPL is a license regarding code. I.e.: .c files with actual code which translates into compiled machine code which is executed by the computer. .h filesu aren't code, they are just an explanation of how to talk with the .c code files. They don't translate into machine code, they are just useful in order to allow other code ( .c ) to talk with yours. In term of copyright,they do not contain original work.
header (
Bionic is free to reuse that information because it's only information used to help othe software play nice with the kernel. None of it will endup in bionic-powered software.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]