Possibly: Gold Lead
In any case you made the claim:
Given that there's more gold than lead in the Earth's crust
So it's up to you to back that up and interestingly enough the link you used doesn't even give a value in the column 'Earth's crust %' for these elements so sorting by that is not going to make any sense in this case. So the blindingly obvious thing to do is work out what it issorted by in that case. Which is *VERY* easy, and if you'd actually bothered to look at it and you'll see it's sorted by 'Earth's Crust %', then by 'Atomic Weight'. Not sure how you come to the conclusion that you did when the data you sorted by isn't even available for the specified elements.
You can be sure the damage award would not be zero even if nobody ever used it. Just the act of publishing it creates damage.
GPL violations almost never result in anything beyond fixing the violation and covering the costs incurred in pursuing it - which of course are basically nothing in this case.
And can you or anyone else prove that no one ever downloaded the file, relied on an Apache license header and consequently built it into something (Android or not)?
My blog never made a specific claim about Android devices containing certain code.
And that's the point! The whole reason why this saga doesn't matter.
The GPL violation has been brought to their attention and they have rectified it by removing it from the repo - by the nature of a repository the files will remain in the archive (perhaps they will need to actually do a full delete) - so the question is why are you making so much of a fuss over what is a very minor GPL violation? Very minor in the sense that shipping versions of Android do not contain the code.
Except that Google *DID* distribute the copyrighted code in question, even if they didn't put it into the handsets. So it's actually this story that's wrong-- Google did, in fact, violate the copyright. Does that mean Slashdot should stop posting pro-Google stories for a couple days? Your point doesn't make much sense to me.
I think his point is that it's a non-event. The problem was brought to google's attention and they rectified it, which is the best possible outcome for a GPL violation.
If you read the summary and not just the article, you'd see that Google did not ship them with Android.
He didn't say that they did. They have taken existing code, re-licensed it under an incompatible license and re-distributed it, this is a violation. Though the fact that it appears it didn't ship in any devices and that google have remedied the problem so quickly would generally mean any penalties will be minimal.
And do what? The fact is they broke the GPL by relicensing the code and making it available under an incompatible license.
But the reality is that the code wasn't 'shipped' so any damages amounting from the incident will be small, coupled with the fact that google have acted quickly to rectify the problem Oracle will likely get a small cheque and the matter will disappear.
Mueller posted a rebuttal to that also, but it seems the upshot of his argument is that the code exists in the sourcetree (which of course has been acknowledged) and that while it doesn't appear to have been actually used in Android distributions (as per the make files) since it is unit test code, Burnette can't prove that Android distributions that do use that code in some form don't exist. So it seems he his now trying to go with a 'guilty until proven innocent' argument.
In his defence of Engadget's headline Mueller also tries to - somewhat oddly - claim that code in the repositories constitutes 'shipped' code, a pretty interesting - and certainly not widely accepted - view of the term.
Linus explicitly banned the "or later version" feature from kernel licensing, so that does not come into it.
It *does* come into it since some of the code has been licensed in that way and as such explicit permission from those authors would not need to be obtained if that code were to be distributed under a GPLv3 license.
The point remains that however Linus wants to license the kernel is the way it will be licensed, so long as it stays within the bounds of reason, does not conflict with legal requirements and does not drive away more developer talent than it attracts.
And i've already explained that he CAN'T do that for the GPLv3.
The only way that could be done is for all (well legally 95%) of developers to give consent, Linus cannot give consent for them hence he cannot relicense it to GPLv3.
What Linus *can* do is introduce the rule that intrusions of more strongly protected code are allowed in the kernel.
Well the potential for this already exists with the GPL in the case where the 'or later version' is specified, the problem is it is not everywhere so since GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible licenses he can't relicense it.
Makes you wonder about who can do what with your Windows Phone 7...
*As I noted in my submission. Which was earlier. WTF editors!?
Or your Android device or your iPhone. Newsflash, it's a smartphone and it's tied to a carrier, just about every smartphone platform has had this very same issue - pretty much exclusively on AT&T - yet some people aren't noticing the pattern.
It doesn't matter. Someone at Microsoft ok'd that third party software without due diligence. It's their baby. Denying it just makes them look unprofessional. But we already knew that.
It doesn't matter. Someone at Microsoft ok'd that third party software without due diligence. It's their baby. Denying it just makes them look unprofessional. But we already knew that.
Given that Windows XP is decently stable, why would you FUD about Vista?
Because the Vista issues are Vista-specific, whereas many people are put off WP7 because of WinMo, but they are completely different operating systems.
My bet is the "Windows Live" service. Why? The one complaint I saw with anything significant to say was a person complaining that they had everything turned off *except* for their Facebook sync through 'Windows live'. My bet, chances are that the Sync is pulling over all the images and bitmaps along with the web updates, and not pulling over just the delta changes to them. Perhaps its a re-download service, not a true sync.
Nah it's not that, i've got a crapload of stuff syncing via windows live and don't have this issue.
If At&T is the primary service then Windows Live is a third party to that service.
I would say it's something to do with AT&T but likely MS don't want to just blame them and affect their relationship, rather fix the issue quietly and move on. But it would be nice to know what it was.
Until Microsoft say which service causes this (so it can be independently verified by users) then you just have to assume that it is a lie. Normally I like to give the benefit of the doubt (and it does seem feasible that a 3rd party app is responsible, but like you said, this follows the standard style of PR spin that most companies employ.
Given this problem is far from widespread or common i would certainly say it's a 3rd party issue, and based on the very few and far between reports of this issue it would seem it's possibly a particular service on a particular carrier.
I can believe it's not happening to anyone - has anyone got one??
I've been through all the smartphone platforms - except Android (only on a tablet) - and i'm currently trying a WP7 phone, I've even got 'feedback' switched on and don't have this issue. It seems to be a U.S. carrier issue, possibly even AT&T only.
If Linus wishes to declare that parts of the kernel can be relicensed with stronger patent protection so long as all the authors of *that part* agree, then it shall be so.
That's what i said, Linus can't do it, he requires the approval of the developers of the code he wishes to change, it's not just up to him.
That survey is almost 5 years old. A lot changed in the interim. GPL v3 got widespread uptake, showing the mood of the developer community, and a number of companies have taken high profile and flagrant advantage of apparent loopholes in GPLv2.
Still, anyone that hasn't used the boilerplate FSF license and/or state 'any later versions', will have to agree to the change in licensing of their code. That is an enormous job in itself.
It's usually a mistake to speak in absolutes about what Linus will or won't do.
I didn't say anything about what he will/won't do, it's the fact that - like i said - he can't just re-license linux because there is code there that is not his to re-license. It's not just up to Linus.
Slashdot Mirror
Gold
Lead
In any case you made the claim:
Given that there's more gold than lead in the Earth's crust
So it's up to you to back that up and interestingly enough the link you used doesn't even give a value in the column 'Earth's crust %' for these elements so sorting by that is not going to make any sense in this case. So the blindingly obvious thing to do is work out what it issorted by in that case. Which is *VERY* easy, and if you'd actually bothered to look at it and you'll see it's sorted by 'Earth's Crust %', then by 'Atomic Weight'. Not sure how you come to the conclusion that you did when the data you sorted by isn't even available for the specified elements.
Seems it might not just be MS
Here we'd have closed the airport for days to make it look like we were doing something.
In the US they'd just use it as an excuse to add a new Security Fondle-Point.
That's what I thought too. They were still in the matrix. How else could Smith move from one to the other? HE'S A FUCKING COMPUTER PROGRAM.
He's cross-platform.
You can be sure the damage award would not be zero even if nobody ever used it. Just the act of publishing it creates damage.
GPL violations almost never result in anything beyond fixing the violation and covering the costs incurred in pursuing it - which of course are basically nothing in this case.
And can you or anyone else prove that no one ever downloaded the file, relied on an Apache license header and consequently built it into something (Android or not)?
You've got it backwards dumbass.
My blog never made a specific claim about Android devices containing certain code.
And that's the point! The whole reason why this saga doesn't matter.
The GPL violation has been brought to their attention and they have rectified it by removing it from the repo - by the nature of a repository the files will remain in the archive (perhaps they will need to actually do a full delete) - so the question is why are you making so much of a fuss over what is a very minor GPL violation? Very minor in the sense that shipping versions of Android do not contain the code.
Except that Google *DID* distribute the copyrighted code in question, even if they didn't put it into the handsets. So it's actually this story that's wrong-- Google did, in fact, violate the copyright. Does that mean Slashdot should stop posting pro-Google stories for a couple days? Your point doesn't make much sense to me.
I think his point is that it's a non-event. The problem was brought to google's attention and they rectified it, which is the best possible outcome for a GPL violation.
If you read the summary and not just the article, you'd see that Google did not ship them with Android.
He didn't say that they did. They have taken existing code, re-licensed it under an incompatible license and re-distributed it, this is a violation. Though the fact that it appears it didn't ship in any devices and that google have remedied the problem so quickly would generally mean any penalties will be minimal.
Hmm, maybe it's time for FSF to weigh in on this.
And do what? The fact is they broke the GPL by relicensing the code and making it available under an incompatible license.
But the reality is that the code wasn't 'shipped' so any damages amounting from the incident will be small, coupled with the fact that google have acted quickly to rectify the problem Oracle will likely get a small cheque and the matter will disappear.
Ed Burnette dug down and found the code to be unused unit-tests and unused driver code, not shipped with android.
See Oops: No copied Java code or weapons of mass destruction found in Android
--dave
Mueller posted a rebuttal to that also, but it seems the upshot of his argument is that the code exists in the sourcetree (which of course has been acknowledged) and that while it doesn't appear to have been actually used in Android distributions (as per the make files) since it is unit test code, Burnette can't prove that Android distributions that do use that code in some form don't exist. So it seems he his now trying to go with a 'guilty until proven innocent' argument.
In his defence of Engadget's headline Mueller also tries to - somewhat oddly - claim that code in the repositories constitutes 'shipped' code, a pretty interesting - and certainly not widely accepted - view of the term.
Linus explicitly banned the "or later version" feature from kernel licensing, so that does not come into it.
It *does* come into it since some of the code has been licensed in that way and as such explicit permission from those authors would not need to be obtained if that code were to be distributed under a GPLv3 license.
The point remains that however Linus wants to license the kernel is the way it will be licensed, so long as it stays within the bounds of reason, does not conflict with legal requirements and does not drive away more developer talent than it attracts.
And i've already explained that he CAN'T do that for the GPLv3.
The only way that could be done is for all (well legally 95%) of developers to give consent, Linus cannot give consent for them hence he cannot relicense it to GPLv3.
What Linus *can* do is introduce the rule that intrusions of more strongly protected code are allowed in the kernel.
Well the potential for this already exists with the GPL in the case where the 'or later version' is specified, the problem is it is not everywhere so since GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible licenses he can't relicense it.
It would be more Microsoft-y if you replaced printf with MessageBox.
lol...i'll go you one better with AfxMessageBox ;)
while(1){ printf("developers "); }
Apparently* it's an external problem and there will be "no need for a system software update.".
Makes you wonder about who can do what with your Windows Phone 7...
*As I noted in my submission. Which was earlier. WTF editors!?
Or your Android device or your iPhone. Newsflash, it's a smartphone and it's tied to a carrier, just about every smartphone platform has had this very same issue - pretty much exclusively on AT&T - yet some people aren't noticing the pattern.
It doesn't matter. Someone at Microsoft ok'd that third party software without due diligence. It's their baby. Denying it just makes them look unprofessional. But we already knew that.
Sounds almost identical to this.
*fixed...
It doesn't matter. Someone at Microsoft ok'd that third party software without due diligence. It's their baby. Denying it just makes them look unprofessional. But we already knew that.
Sounds almost identical to this.
Given that Windows XP is decently stable, why would you FUD about Vista?
Because the Vista issues are Vista-specific, whereas many people are put off WP7 because of WinMo, but they are completely different operating systems.
My bet is the "Windows Live" service. Why? The one complaint I saw with anything significant to say was a person complaining that they had everything turned off *except* for their Facebook sync through 'Windows live'. My bet, chances are that the Sync is pulling over all the images and bitmaps along with the web updates, and not pulling over just the delta changes to them. Perhaps its a re-download service, not a true sync.
Nah it's not that, i've got a crapload of stuff syncing via windows live and don't have this issue.
If At&T is the primary service then Windows Live is a third party to that service.
I would say it's something to do with AT&T but likely MS don't want to just blame them and affect their relationship, rather fix the issue quietly and move on. But it would be nice to know what it was.
Until Microsoft say which service causes this (so it can be independently verified by users) then you just have to assume that it is a lie. Normally I like to give the benefit of the doubt (and it does seem feasible that a 3rd party app is responsible, but like you said, this follows the standard style of PR spin that most companies employ.
Given this problem is far from widespread or common i would certainly say it's a 3rd party issue, and based on the very few and far between reports of this issue it would seem it's possibly a particular service on a particular carrier.
I can believe it's not happening to anyone - has anyone got one??
I've been through all the smartphone platforms - except Android (only on a tablet) - and i'm currently trying a WP7 phone, I've even got 'feedback' switched on and don't have this issue. It seems to be a U.S. carrier issue, possibly even AT&T only.
If Linus wishes to declare that parts of the kernel can be relicensed with stronger patent protection so long as all the authors of *that part* agree, then it shall be so.
That's what i said, Linus can't do it, he requires the approval of the developers of the code he wishes to change, it's not just up to him.
If you're spending money on open source you're either buying a service, or employing devs to improve/modify the software.
So, like i said, you don't buy an open source product.
That survey is almost 5 years old. A lot changed in the interim. GPL v3 got widespread uptake, showing the mood of the developer community, and a number of companies have taken high profile and flagrant advantage of apparent loopholes in GPLv2.
Still, anyone that hasn't used the boilerplate FSF license and/or state 'any later versions', will have to agree to the change in licensing of their code. That is an enormous job in itself.
It's usually a mistake to speak in absolutes about what Linus will or won't do.
I didn't say anything about what he will/won't do, it's the fact that - like i said - he can't just re-license linux because there is code there that is not his to re-license. It's not just up to Linus.