And is it a coincidence that Eclipse is the tool used to develop Android applications? This will make it more difficult to cross-develop applications using only a mac. I'm sure there will be other Java implementations for Mac OS X so I'm not that worried, but it still makes you wonder.
Don't trademarks needed to be registered to be enforced?
Actually no they do not. There are (at least) two ways to gain a trademark:
Registration, which is the safest one, since you know whether you have a trademark or not. This is usually marked with the (R)-symbol
Usage/Establishment (the legal term in Sweden is "inarbetad", I actually don't know the english equivalent), by consequently using a brand name in a certain way to market a product, service etc. you may gain trademark rights if the brand becomes part of the public awareness. Usually the TM-symbol is used to show that a company intends to use this as a trademark but it is not registered.
Trademark law varies a little from country to country and please consider this a simplified explanation. IANALBIHADIL (I Am Not a Lawyer But I Hold a Degree in Law, there must be a shorter one for this - any suggestions?)
Very well stated, and if I had mod points I would happily provide them.
People seem to forget that there's not one phone that's the best for everyone. It's about the best phone for the job, and different people have different opinions about what that job is. I completely understand iPhone buyers, you know what you get and in a smooth experience, and am thinking of becoming one myself. On the other hand I understand Android-buyers, you get the freedom to choose and do pretty much as you please, but it lacks several other things like a smooth upgrade path (Nexus One excluded) and a market with non-free apps in several countries.
Sure, Jobs' view of what should be in a phone does not fit everybody. But if it fits a customer's view, why shouldn't he/she buy one?
I am starting to look for a new phone and an Android handset seems like the Next Big Thing (tm). But the complete lack of purchasable apps in several countries makes a purchase completely out of the question. Google's apparent lack of interest in commenting on the matter makes me feel uncomfortable.
As a developer, I would love to port my upcoming apps to Android as well as iPhone. But Google won't let me sell my app in their market, why? Android is always pushed forward as the more "open" with regards to which apps are allowed. But the fact that you cannot even access the non-free apps in several markets makes the App Store a much better alternative for me.
So Google, any news on when I will be allowed to give you my money, or sell my apps through your store and (hopefully) providing you with revenue?
Maybe this is obvious to everyone else, but I don't see how this is different from an unprivileged user installing a static binary to his/her home directory and executing it? To me this is just as insecure and possible in any distribution?
This will sound like I'm a total Apple fanboy, but I'm not and I don't think that everything that Apple does is great.
However, Apple has a way with understanding consumer needs and to make geeky technology attractive and useful for the average person (and by average, I of course mean anyone rich enough to by their often overpriced gear).
Since when did "easier to read" mean "more bulletproof?" It works most often in software, but nothing is so strange as the law.
Never. It never meant that, neither have I even implied that it did. My post was meant to ease the worries of the person who was afraid Microsoft was "out to get" the GPL.
Even though the terms of the MS licenses seem reasonable to me, the layman, I would prefer to go with something that has been seen fit by the courts (GPL2) and is in another revision (GPL3, although, of course, there's the possibility of bugs), or one that has tons of source under it (Apache 2) contributed by a company with one of the most feared legal teams of these times (IBM) putting it under a microscope.
I agree, the GPL is a good license and I have never meant to say anything else. However, I maintain that I was suprised, in a good way, to see Microsoft create such a simplistic open source license. Knowing them I would've expected a 100-page monster.
And as always choice is good, now Open Source developers has another licence to choose from.
No they are not. Microsofts license demands that if you redistribute source, then you must use the same license. Also it takes patents and trademarks in consideration. I'd say that the Microsoft license is designed with business in mind, wich the BSD license is clearly not.
Slashdot Mirror
And is it a coincidence that Eclipse is the tool used to develop Android applications? This will make it more difficult to cross-develop applications using only a mac. I'm sure there will be other Java implementations for Mac OS X so I'm not that worried, but it still makes you wonder.
Correct, he won't since the person appointed is a she. Way to go with the stereotype male association though.
Don't trademarks needed to be registered to be enforced?
Actually no they do not. There are (at least) two ways to gain a trademark:
Trademark law varies a little from country to country and please consider this a simplified explanation. IANALBIHADIL (I Am Not a Lawyer But I Hold a Degree in Law, there must be a shorter one for this - any suggestions?)
Very well stated, and if I had mod points I would happily provide them.
People seem to forget that there's not one phone that's the best for everyone. It's about the best phone for the job, and different people have different opinions about what that job is. I completely understand iPhone buyers, you know what you get and in a smooth experience, and am thinking of becoming one myself. On the other hand I understand Android-buyers, you get the freedom to choose and do pretty much as you please, but it lacks several other things like a smooth upgrade path (Nexus One excluded) and a market with non-free apps in several countries.
Sure, Jobs' view of what should be in a phone does not fit everybody. But if it fits a customer's view, why shouldn't he/she buy one?
I am starting to look for a new phone and an Android handset seems like the Next Big Thing (tm). But the complete lack of purchasable apps in several countries makes a purchase completely out of the question. Google's apparent lack of interest in commenting on the matter makes me feel uncomfortable.
As a developer, I would love to port my upcoming apps to Android as well as iPhone. But Google won't let me sell my app in their market, why? Android is always pushed forward as the more "open" with regards to which apps are allowed. But the fact that you cannot even access the non-free apps in several markets makes the App Store a much better alternative for me.
So Google, any news on when I will be allowed to give you my money, or sell my apps through your store and (hopefully) providing you with revenue?
However, it does contain the letter "Æ". Which coincidentally is called "Ash" in English.
I see your point, thanks for making it clear.
Maybe this is obvious to everyone else, but I don't see how this is different from an unprivileged user installing a static binary to his/her home directory and executing it? To me this is just as insecure and possible in any distribution?
Ah, there's nothing to support an argument like a blog post from 2006.
http://xkcd.com/435/
Agreed, as soon as I read TFA (yes, I actually read TFA), I hit the search button in the hope that someone had already made this point.
And from what I could see from the rest of their web page, they seem to be doing little to none international work at all, nice job!
*sigh*
Wow, you managed to get first post and be insightful! And what's more, I felt no need to even read any additional comments, well done.
Surely they want to make sure that users notice that amazing startup sound they created. :)
This will sound like I'm a total Apple fanboy, but I'm not and I don't think that everything that Apple does is great. However, Apple has a way with understanding consumer needs and to make geeky technology attractive and useful for the average person (and by average, I of course mean anyone rich enough to by their often overpriced gear).
Never. It never meant that, neither have I even implied that it did. My post was meant to ease the worries of the person who was afraid Microsoft was "out to get" the GPL.
Even though the terms of the MS licenses seem reasonable to me, the layman, I would prefer to go with something that has been seen fit by the courts (GPL2) and is in another revision (GPL3, although, of course, there's the possibility of bugs), or one that has tons of source under it (Apache 2) contributed by a company with one of the most feared legal teams of these times (IBM) putting it under a microscope.I agree, the GPL is a good license and I have never meant to say anything else. However, I maintain that I was suprised, in a good way, to see Microsoft create such a simplistic open source license. Knowing them I would've expected a 100-page monster.
And as always choice is good, now Open Source developers has another licence to choose from.
No they are not. Microsofts license demands that if you redistribute source, then you must use the same license. Also it takes patents and trademarks in consideration. I'd say that the Microsoft license is designed with business in mind, wich the BSD license is clearly not.
Oh, first post on /. and it's actually defending Microsoft. As someone stated above, satan _must_ be freezing.
Enough of that and to my point:
I'm quite fond of the GPL and open source licenses in general. But actually, the open source licenses that microsoft has created (Ms-PL and Ms-RL) are a lot less restrictive then the GPL and a great deal easier to read. If Microsoft will use theese licenses then there should be no problem with GPL-compatability as far as I can tell.
The "disclaimer" in that FAQ is just saying that they wont promise anything, and it is probably the smartest thing to do so that they won't get sued.