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!
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.
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's a lawyer. Donating money to a lawyer is like donating blood to a vampire. It makes them stronger and then they hurt more innocent people.
Try donating your money to someone who deserves it, like these people
Donating money to a lawyer is like donating blood to a vampire. It makes them stronger and then they hurt more innocent people.
Try donating your money to someone who deserves it, like these people [eff.org]
"Don't donate money to lawyers! Donate it so someone who deserves it, like these lawyers!"
The EFF is not a law firm. TOR, HTTPS Everywhere, etc. are not lawsuits.
Even where they're involved in litigation, it's to set a precedent that helps you and me, not to line their own coffers with settlement money.
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."
Yeah, he's got nothing to gain from this crusade. I wonder why he deleted all the references to his microsoft employment from his curriculum, that's probably because there are no interests connected to him or maybe because he has nothing to gain. Really.... a lawyer who has nothing to gain...
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.
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."
I understand it is not a democracy. However committing a copyright violation requires that the minority prove by preponderance of the evidence that a violation occurred. Large numbers of people with a well over majority stake in the work saying there is no violation is likely to make that impossible.
Yea, TOR, the US Navy research project that the EFF created ...
If you're going to paint them as useful for more than just lawsuits, at least pick stuff they actually did, not just something they happened to join into late in the game to play along.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
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.
Unless you're trying to argue that they made no contribution to the project whatsoever (which is clearly false), I'm not sure what your point is. Somebody has got to provide hosting services, operate nodes, write FAQs, etc. Somebody has to do the work that isn't sexy. Not everything can be idea men inventing great new things that have never been done before; somebody has got to hold down the fort during the period after you have something new and cool but before it can stand on its own and operate independently. Otherwise the project never makes it out of the lab.
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.
laws are meant for protecting minorities
since when?
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
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 ]