Easy for you to say if you don't want to play a game that's only available for PS3, for instance MGS4.
I don't have time to play all the games I have already, and frankly, today a low end Radeon or NVidia card leaves PS3 so far in the dust it isn't funny. The game I want to play is SkyRim. MGS4 are simplistic and dull in comparision to TES. I only bought the PS3 to eliminate having to boot Windows, to fill the gap until AAA titles start to get regular Linux ports. I guess we're nearly there now.
Just don't buy anything from Sony for some time. Like forever.
The way Sony treated me over the faulty PS3 hardware they sold me makes this decision easy, never mind the other horrible things Sony does on a regular basis.
As I said, my proposition is creative, as was Hr. Mueller's asserting that Google has not "deleted" the files in question. Some repository structures do not permit history modification. Perhaps they should, regardless of technical difficulty. But the question of whether an isolated file in the downloadable history of an open source repository infringes anything at all is far from clear. Consider the principle of fair use where "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes" helps determine whether a given expression infringes or not. The questions are far from black and white as the trolls would like to pretend. As a non-lawyer may I be so bold as to suggest that non-profit and/or educational nature of an open source repository would weigh heavily against a determination of infringement. Another factor I would expect to weigh heavily is whether the copyright holder has communicated its belief that a given use is infringing in such a way that inadvertent infringement can be corrected. In contrast, a "surprise attack" based on accidental infringement might well run afoul of antitrust laws, and at least, might well earn the ire of the court. All interesting questions, stuff to make lawyers rich. As an open source author I will not lose sleep over whether a few lines in my repository carry the wrong attribution or incorrect license notice, but I would never dream of refusing a reasonable request to make the appropriate correction. I would also consider it advisable for Mercurial and Git developers to take steps to ensure that removal of text content from historical records is fast and easy, just as insurance.
The usual remedy is for the offending party to correct the fault, which in this case would appear to involve (re)attaching the correct copyleft license to some files distributed to developers and a hefty "donation" to the FSF.
oracle is using the gpl against google (for the entertainment of foss haters), but google violated the letter of the GPL and its spirit if it wasn't a mistake.
The spirit of the GPL is definitely not to support lawsuits by patent trolls against users of free software. Hmm, maybe it's time for FSF to weigh in on this.
(...but Slashdot's hate for Oracle exceeds their love for Google), then fuck them.
Speaking for all Slashdot, we hate you too.
Just joking. You're clearly the odd man out though. Oracle is the bully in the room, you appear be chearleading for the bully. Feeling a little lonely? So sad.
Take Linux, fork it, and redistribute it under the Apache license...
Google didn't take Linux and redistribute it under the Apache license or anything remotely like that. See what I mean about "spin"?
...silly accusations against the victim, solely because they are Oracle.
Haha, that's rich. Oracle... victim... like it wasn't Oracle who sued Google over using Java, thus pissing off the entire free software and open source community in one go...
Right. I'm weeping for Larry at this very moment or maybe not.
False, they copyright holder did *not* allow it. That's the whole point.
The whole spin you mean. The fact is, Oracle licensed the code in question for distribution under some license. That by itself pretty much takes the wind out of the sails of any argument that Oracle never intended the source to be distributed. Then it gets down to niggling about the license, intent, copyleft, tip of tree, all that. Interesting but not earth shattering, in spite of how much various trolls wish it were.
There is great danger for Oracle in all this: they may be perceived as gaming the spirit of the GPL. In fact, that is how I perceive them. How much do you suppose our free software friends appreciate having their name being used in vain by Oracle, no friend of free software?
I hope that someday everything on Android is handled through kernel interfaces and native libraries
By the way, you must be aware that it already is? Java/Dalvik does all its IO including all device control by JNI calls. Exactly the same API calls a native binary makes, except twisted through the incredibly barfacious JNI API.
You're not going to impress me exaggerating by the difficulty of doing this or that with a computer, especially when it comes to interpreters and especially when it comes to execution environments. Conversion of large Java code bases to C++ is largely mechanical, and in this case, only a small fraction of the code needs to be converted to remove the tie between native applications and Java. Here is the reality: smart people can do stuff like that. Stupid people just bleat about the difficulty ad nauseum.
See, it may be true its not shipped, but the writer of the article in question does admit the license was altered and tries to dismiss it as an irrelevant action that may have been done by an automated script.
The only realistic outcome I can perceive from this teapot tempest is a further strengthening of the GPL, which ought to delight the FSF and me for that matter.
One does not violate a copyright, one violates a copyright distribution license. In this case, the GPL. Usually, when the GPL is violated the copyright holder goes out of their way to make it easy for the violator to come into compliance. If the copyright holder in this case demands some extreme remedy, than that would be a story[1]. If not, it's a tempest in a teapot, good mainly for lots of Slashdot hits which is not necessarily a bad thing.
[1] The story would be about the deranged copyright holder more than the violator.
Wasn't Android the result of Google's purchase of a smaller company?
That is correct, a company called "Android".
Given that it's unlikely Eric Schmidt had any say in the initial technology choices behind Android.
Clearly not the original design, but very probably in the continued reliance on it. By now, a C++ application platform with no ties whatsoever to Java should have been added to the Android SDK and the fact that it is not suggests some kind of "go slow" order from the top. In the most charitable view, it would constitute extreme lack of attention.
You can be sure the damage award would not be zero even if nobody ever used it.
For an inadvertent inclusion of an incorrect license on GPLed code? I can't be sure of what you suggest at all, in fact the opposite seems considerably more likely. Looks to me like you're pretty far out on a limb on this, I would suggest backing slowly away.
It's also wrong, as stated above, that Google "deleted" those files. They are still in the Froyo (Android 2.2) and Gingerbread (2.3) trees. At least they were when I last checked, which was yesterday. They are just not in the tree for future versions.
Wow Florian, that's a creative interpretation of "not deleted". I presume that you mean, a user can still check out an older repository version and that version would contain the files in question. Let me make an equally creative counter-proposition. If the files were deleted from the tip of the repository but not from the history, that simply provides a historical record of exactly what was deleted. You can't make the information vanish from the past you know, unless you are also proposing some kind of time travel. You can only make information vanish from the present, that is, tip of tree.
They might have a case for copyright violation against Google
You mean GPL violation? The usual remedy is for the offending party to correct the fault, which in this case would appear to involve (re)attaching the correct copyleft license to some files distributed to developers. An alternative remedy would be to stop distributing the files in question. A combination of correcting the license for files that actually matter and dropping those files that aren't needed anyway is the likely outcome.
Slashdot Mirror
Easy for you to say if you don't want to play a game that's only available for PS3, for instance MGS4.
I don't have time to play all the games I have already, and frankly, today a low end Radeon or NVidia card leaves PS3 so far in the dust it isn't funny. The game I want to play is SkyRim. MGS4 are simplistic and dull in comparision to TES. I only bought the PS3 to eliminate having to boot Windows, to fill the gap until AAA titles start to get regular Linux ports. I guess we're nearly there now.
Sony believes that it pays to be evil so they will keep doing it.
Just don't buy anything from Sony for some time. Like forever.
The way Sony treated me over the faulty PS3 hardware they sold me makes this decision easy, never mind the other horrible things Sony does on a regular basis.
Funny how three of the patents were granted just at the time the Tivo must have been in final development.
And (in reply to myself) would be a form of evil, not the greatest start.
Blame any past evil on the outgoing Schmidt? Might help in the absence of new missteps.
As I said, my proposition is creative, as was Hr. Mueller's asserting that Google has not "deleted" the files in question. Some repository structures do not permit history modification. Perhaps they should, regardless of technical difficulty. But the question of whether an isolated file in the downloadable history of an open source repository infringes anything at all is far from clear. Consider the principle of fair use where "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes" helps determine whether a given expression infringes or not. The questions are far from black and white as the trolls would like to pretend. As a non-lawyer may I be so bold as to suggest that non-profit and/or educational nature of an open source repository would weigh heavily against a determination of infringement. Another factor I would expect to weigh heavily is whether the copyright holder has communicated its belief that a given use is infringing in such a way that inadvertent infringement can be corrected. In contrast, a "surprise attack" based on accidental infringement might well run afoul of antitrust laws, and at least, might well earn the ire of the court. All interesting questions, stuff to make lawyers rich. As an open source author I will not lose sleep over whether a few lines in my repository carry the wrong attribution or incorrect license notice, but I would never dream of refusing a reasonable request to make the appropriate correction. I would also consider it advisable for Mercurial and Git developers to take steps to ensure that removal of text content from historical records is fast and easy, just as insurance.
How is Oracle a patent troll?
Oh, I don't know, maybe suing Google over bogus Java patents?
The usual remedy is for the offending party to correct the fault, which in this case would appear to involve (re)attaching the correct copyleft license to some files distributed to developers and a hefty "donation" to the FSF.
FTFY.
the most money we ever ask for is reimbursement of our cost in doing that enforcement effort
Hmm, who to believe, you or Bradley Kuhn?
oracle is using the gpl against google (for the entertainment of foss haters), but google violated the letter of the GPL and its spirit if it wasn't a mistake.
The spirit of the GPL is definitely not to support lawsuits by patent trolls against users of free software. Hmm, maybe it's time for FSF to weigh in on this.
I very much want to see Larry take his Java patents to court and get smacked down on abundant prior art.
I hope you meant Larry Ellison and not Larry Page.
Falcon
Good point, in future I should specify "Larry Troll" to avoid confusion with "Larry Geek".
(...but Slashdot's hate for Oracle exceeds their love for Google), then fuck them.
Speaking for all Slashdot, we hate you too.
Just joking. You're clearly the odd man out though. Oracle is the bully in the room, you appear be chearleading for the bully. Feeling a little lonely? So sad.
Take Linux, fork it, and redistribute it under the Apache license...
Google didn't take Linux and redistribute it under the Apache license or anything remotely like that. See what I mean about "spin"?
...silly accusations against the victim, solely because they are Oracle.
Haha, that's rich. Oracle... victim... like it wasn't Oracle who sued Google over using Java, thus pissing off the entire free software and open source community in one go...
Right. I'm weeping for Larry at this very moment or maybe not.
False, they copyright holder did *not* allow it. That's the whole point.
The whole spin you mean. The fact is, Oracle licensed the code in question for distribution under some license. That by itself pretty much takes the wind out of the sails of any argument that Oracle never intended the source to be distributed. Then it gets down to niggling about the license, intent, copyleft, tip of tree, all that. Interesting but not earth shattering, in spite of how much various trolls wish it were.
There is great danger for Oracle in all this: they may be perceived as gaming the spirit of the GPL. In fact, that is how I perceive them. How much do you suppose our free software friends appreciate having their name being used in vain by Oracle, no friend of free software?
I hope that someday everything on Android is handled through kernel interfaces and native libraries
By the way, you must be aware that it already is? Java/Dalvik does all its IO including all device control by JNI calls. Exactly the same API calls a native binary makes, except twisted through the incredibly barfacious JNI API.
One has to be a realist.
You're not going to impress me exaggerating by the difficulty of doing this or that with a computer, especially when it comes to interpreters and especially when it comes to execution environments. Conversion of large Java code bases to C++ is largely mechanical, and in this case, only a small fraction of the code needs to be converted to remove the tie between native applications and Java. Here is the reality: smart people can do stuff like that. Stupid people just bleat about the difficulty ad nauseum.
Sounds much like you're trolling. Copyrighted files can be distributed if the copyright holder allows it.
And the copyright holder (Oracle) did not allow it.
False, the copyright holder did allow it. The rest seems to be about correct identification of the distribution license.
See, it may be true its not shipped, but the writer of the article in question does admit the license was altered and tries to dismiss it as an irrelevant action that may have been done by an automated script.
The only realistic outcome I can perceive from this teapot tempest is a further strengthening of the GPL, which ought to delight the FSF and me for that matter.
if Google violated the GPL by changing the license, it also infringed Oracle's underlying copyright.
Non sequitur alert.
Google did, in fact, violate the copyright.
One does not violate a copyright, one violates a copyright distribution license. In this case, the GPL. Usually, when the GPL is violated the copyright holder goes out of their way to make it easy for the violator to come into compliance. If the copyright holder in this case demands some extreme remedy, than that would be a story[1]. If not, it's a tempest in a teapot, good mainly for lots of Slashdot hits which is not necessarily a bad thing.
[1] The story would be about the deranged copyright holder more than the violator.
Wasn't Android the result of Google's purchase of a smaller company?
That is correct, a company called "Android".
Given that it's unlikely Eric Schmidt had any say in the initial technology choices behind Android.
Clearly not the original design, but very probably in the continued reliance on it. By now, a C++ application platform with no ties whatsoever to Java should have been added to the Android SDK and the fact that it is not suggests some kind of "go slow" order from the top. In the most charitable view, it would constitute extreme lack of attention.
Pasting an Apache license on GPL'd code falls spectacularly into the "not legal" category.
Spectacularly? You must lead a pretty dull life :-)
In my opinion, it falls more in the "should be pointed out and corrected" category. Much like a typo in a textbook.
You can be sure the damage award would not be zero even if nobody ever used it.
For an inadvertent inclusion of an incorrect license on GPLed code? I can't be sure of what you suggest at all, in fact the opposite seems considerably more likely. Looks to me like you're pretty far out on a limb on this, I would suggest backing slowly away.
It's also wrong, as stated above, that Google "deleted" those files. They are still in the Froyo (Android 2.2) and Gingerbread (2.3) trees. At least they were when I last checked, which was yesterday. They are just not in the tree for future versions.
Wow Florian, that's a creative interpretation of "not deleted". I presume that you mean, a user can still check out an older repository version and that version would contain the files in question. Let me make an equally creative counter-proposition. If the files were deleted from the tip of the repository but not from the history, that simply provides a historical record of exactly what was deleted. You can't make the information vanish from the past you know, unless you are also proposing some kind of time travel. You can only make information vanish from the present, that is, tip of tree.
They might have a case for copyright violation against Google
You mean GPL violation? The usual remedy is for the offending party to correct the fault, which in this case would appear to involve (re)attaching the correct copyleft license to some files distributed to developers. An alternative remedy would be to stop distributing the files in question. A combination of correcting the license for files that actually matter and dropping those files that aren't needed anyway is the likely outcome.