but that is not relevant to the issue since external drivers do not have to be under the GPL.
What does this sentence mean??? Linux drivers do have be GPLed (if they're written to Linux APIs for sure). And indeed, the drivers here are GPLed. The claimed problem is that a big binary blob is depending on them (and not doing so via the syscall exception). That makes it very likely a derived work, according to common copyright law, and hence a violation of the licence Linux is made available under if distributed.
The issue here is whether the Linux kernel used to boot the VMWare kernel
Uh, did you read the article? The issue *is* the drivers according to Hellwig..
That it uses Red Hat Linux for most of the upper level functions is not the issue. The issue here is whether the fact that a Linux kernel is used as a bootloader makes the proprietary VMWare kernel a "derived work".
Uh, the poster you just responded to was making the point that ESX seems to need Linux for *more* than just boatloader - see his point that ESX has no hardware requirements beyond Linux. This is essentially what Hellwig is saying too - that ESX is directly dependent on Linux drivers for hardware IO support. As a counter-example: Xen also needs a host OS for IO support, however it interfaces to host OSes via an abstracted, well-defined and reasonably stable communication channel - any OS implementing that channel will do (and there are several). That channel would insulate Xen from claims it derives from the dom0 OS, however that channel also costs Xen a *lot* of performance.
Perhaps you should read what you reply to and address the content, rather than regurgitating this "it's only a boatloader point" which has been made many many times in this thread.
Further, according to the poster you're replying to, ESX is not only dependent on Linux, but also on at least one user-space GPL project for functionality. Based on what the GP is saying, and note I have no way whether his post is accurate it, it sounds like the Samba people have standing to sue too. (The Linux "using syscalls is a GPL barrier" exception doesn't count here - the infringement is in the other direction..).
NB: I am speculating on the GP's post, the GP's claims may not be accurate, my speculation may be wrong.
Digital TV standards tend to provide for meta-data to be broadcast along with the video data, E.g. DVB channels tend to carry an Electronic Programme Guide data stream and all the FTA DVB-T channels in the UK seem to provide it. The US ATSC standards apparently provide for this too (no idea whether US digital broadcasters transmit such meta-data though).
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
That patent was on using reactive forces generated by having smaller planes at an angle of incidence to a larger plane. It covers wing-warping, elevons/elevators, everything. It also covers using angle-of-attack to regulate speed.
Wing-warping just happened to be how the Wright brothers implemented their patent. In fact Curtiss used ailerons, not wing-warping, to try get around their patent but failed. Bleriot used elevons in his 1909 monoplane. The problem is that there were implementations of Wright's patent *prior* to them ever flying.
Ultimately, the Wright brothers patent story proved how bad patents can be for development. The european aviation scene progressed marvelously (none of the inventors bothered much with patents it seems) while american aviation stagnated.
To say that Wright brothers invented flying is contentious at best. They made huge contributions, and were at the technical fore-front of their day - no doubt - however their achievements were NOT made in a vacuum! Aviation was one of the hottest fields of R&D of the close of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th.
The propellor efficiency patent is interesting though, but does not contradict my point that *much* research in aviation was done prior to the Wright brothers achieving powered flight.
Re:Wright brothers are another good example
on
Patents Don't Pay
·
· Score: 2, Informative
They didn't invent that stuff at all. There had been several decades of experimentation in aviation with gliders, and the aerodynamics and control issues the Wright brothers used had been worked out using those already, e.g. the aileron first appeared on a glider in 1902.
The important patent the Wright brothers got didn't have anything to do with aerodynamic designs at all. They patented an engine design that was efficient enough, in terms of power/weight, to be viable for powered flight.
The FSF has used the syscall interface as a guideline to determine whether something is a derived work or not.
I don't believe that's true. I think you're thinking of the explicit exemption Linus put in the COPYING file of the Linux kernel to say that the syscall interface was a GPL interface (there are Linux contributors who disagree to an extent with him on that).
That's better than "it has been decided" (which is still modded "informative" for some unknown reason), however it's still not true. It may what many programmers roughly understand as a boundary of the GPL, but it is not what a court might understand. A court will take a wider view, not predicated on mere computer technicalities...
My provider (Gexa) offers service (Gexa Green) with 100% of the power generated by wind, water, and solar.
That's cool, but they can only provide such service to a minority of electrical users, as those power sources will never ever be able to provide a more significant share of the power supply (unless of course our society regresses massively technology, willingly or otherwise).
Where, pray tell, did I make any claims about efficiency in my post?
FWIW, I have no idea either way which is the more efficient. It's quite possible though iTMS takes more power (CDs sitting in a warehouse don't need any power - only the actual delivery process needs power).
Except that you don't have to burn fossil fuels to get your music to your house. Nor is there any fossil fuel expended in transporting the disk to the store.
Uh, yes you did have to burn fossil fuels..
It takes electrical energy to power all those computers, disks, routers, repeaters and cables. Energy which is in the main generated by burning stuff (Unless you live in France, where 80% odd of the electric grid is powered by nuclear plants).
Will 4 digits do? (I'm a reasonably long-time Free software fan boy too, if that helps).
That you said "Linux monoculture" means you're trolling.
Rubbish.
The GP is spot on in making the implicit point that, as monocultures are bad, a Linux monoculture would be as bad as any other. If the mantra of free software is choice, then the choice of Windows on OLPC is a good thing, regardless of how crap Windows is or how evil MS are. Let free software win on merit..
This is all presuming that OLPC has not compromised the cost to gain Windows support. A presumption that appears to be correct based on the information to hand.
Well, then "everybody" has been doing CVT since the 1950s - my grandfather drove a DAF car with CVT in the Netherlands back then. Despite that, very few people other than car geeks have heard of CVT and CVT cars are a rarity on the road..
Nor do internal combustion engine driven cars, with continuously variable transmission. Williams tested it in the early 90s - there's video of Coulthard accelerating from a standing start with the engine steady at peak revs the whole way, but it was banned by the FIA.
but a lawyer's ethics are much trickier because he's supposed to be a vigorous advocate for his client.
In the english legal system, from which the systems of the USA and others forked, barristers act not in their clients' interest, but primarily in the interests of justice. E.g. from the Irish Bar'sCode of Conduct, (which forked only 80 odd years ago from the English one), in the section on practicing barristers:
Barristers have an overriding duty to the Court to ensure in the public interest that the proper and efficient administration of justice is achieved and they must assist the Court in the administration of justice and must not deceive or knowingly mislead the court.
Barristers must promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means their client's best interests and do so without regard to their own interest or to any consequences for themselves or to any other person including fellow members of the legal profession. And note from the beginning of the code that all members of the Bar, practicing barristers or not, have a duty to uphold the ethics and ethiquette of their profession.
I'd be curious what kinds of professional obligations US Bar and Law societies impose on their members, particularly as to how far they allow such members to advocate their clients cases beyond the interests of justice. The "rogue" lawyers you say exist in the USA possibly would liable to censure by the professional body regulating them.
And meaningless. There's a reason they're inadmissible: no scientific credibility at all. (And yet the FBI still uses them to screen applicants, amazing).
Only creative elements can be copyrighted. I.e. a bunch of random bits can't be.
That said, I gather sometimes they distribute things like folk music, even porn films rather than junk, under the name of popular albums. So the RIAA (or agents acting on their behalf) apparently are quite happy to violate other people's copyright to "defend" their own (well, their member's copyrights).
Slashdot Mirror
but that is not relevant to the issue since external drivers do not have to be under the GPL.
What does this sentence mean??? Linux drivers do have be GPLed (if they're written to Linux APIs for sure). And indeed, the drivers here are GPLed. The claimed problem is that a big binary blob is depending on them (and not doing so via the syscall exception). That makes it very likely a derived work, according to common copyright law, and hence a violation of the licence Linux is made available under if distributed.
The issue here is whether the Linux kernel used to boot the VMWare kernel
Uh, did you read the article? The issue *is* the drivers according to Hellwig..
That it uses Red Hat Linux for most of the upper level functions is not the issue. The issue here is whether the fact that a Linux kernel is used as a bootloader makes the proprietary VMWare kernel a "derived work".
Uh, the poster you just responded to was making the point that ESX seems to need Linux for *more* than just boatloader - see his point that ESX has no hardware requirements beyond Linux. This is essentially what Hellwig is saying too - that ESX is directly dependent on Linux drivers for hardware IO support. As a counter-example: Xen also needs a host OS for IO support, however it interfaces to host OSes via an abstracted, well-defined and reasonably stable communication channel - any OS implementing that channel will do (and there are several). That channel would insulate Xen from claims it derives from the dom0 OS, however that channel also costs Xen a *lot* of performance.
Perhaps you should read what you reply to and address the content, rather than regurgitating this "it's only a boatloader point" which has been made many many times in this thread.
Further, according to the poster you're replying to, ESX is not only dependent on Linux, but also on at least one user-space GPL project for functionality. Based on what the GP is saying, and note I have no way whether his post is accurate it, it sounds like the Samba people have standing to sue too. (The Linux "using syscalls is a GPL barrier" exception doesn't count here - the infringement is in the other direction..).
NB: I am speculating on the GP's post, the GP's claims may not be accurate, my speculation may be wrong.
Digital TV standards tend to provide for meta-data to be broadcast along with the video data, E.g. DVB channels tend to carry an Electronic Programme Guide data stream and all the FTA DVB-T channels in the UK seem to provide it. The US ATSC standards apparently provide for this too (no idea whether US digital broadcasters transmit such meta-data though).
Eisenhower's Military-Industrial Complex speech.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Heed was not taken and arose it did..
That patent was on using reactive forces generated by having smaller planes at an angle of incidence to a larger plane. It covers wing-warping, elevons/elevators, everything. It also covers using angle-of-attack to regulate speed.
Wing-warping just happened to be how the Wright brothers implemented their patent. In fact Curtiss used ailerons , not wing-warping, to try get around their patent but failed. Bleriot used elevons in his 1909 monoplane. The problem is that there were implementations of Wright's patent *prior* to them ever flying.
Ultimately, the Wright brothers patent story proved how bad patents can be for development. The european aviation scene progressed marvelously (none of the inventors bothered much with patents it seems) while american aviation stagnated.
To say that Wright brothers invented flying is contentious at best. They made huge contributions, and were at the technical fore-front of their day - no doubt - however their achievements were NOT made in a vacuum! Aviation was one of the hottest fields of R&D of the close of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th.
The propellor efficiency patent is interesting though, but does not contradict my point that *much* research in aviation was done prior to the Wright brothers achieving powered flight.
They didn't invent that stuff at all. There had been several decades of experimentation in aviation with gliders, and the aerodynamics and control issues the Wright brothers used had been worked out using those already, e.g. the aileron first appeared on a glider in 1902.
The important patent the Wright brothers got didn't have anything to do with aerodynamic designs at all. They patented an engine design that was efficient enough, in terms of power/weight, to be viable for powered flight.
The FSF has used the syscall interface as a guideline to determine whether something is a derived work or not.
I don't believe that's true. I think you're thinking of the explicit exemption Linus put in the COPYING file of the Linux kernel to say that the syscall interface was a GPL interface (there are Linux contributors who disagree to an extent with him on that).
That's better than "it has been decided" (which is still modded "informative" for some unknown reason), however it's still not true. It may what many programmers roughly understand as a boundary of the GPL, but it is not what a court might understand. A court will take a wider view, not predicated on mere computer technicalities...
It has been decided that the deciding factor with the GPL is whether or not something links to it.
This is absolutely not true. "It has been decided": When? By whom? This claim is not only unfounded, it is also quite false (just ask a lawyer..).
The parent absolutely should NOT be modded as informative.
CDs sitting in a warehouse use power - heating, transporting staff to the warehouse, they probably have computerised systems for tracking stuff...
;)
Well, that's obviously true yes. If you c read what I wrote:
CDs sitting in a warehouse don't need any power - only the actual delivery process needs power
I already made your point, without the detail. Slightly evil to have phrased though, yes.
My provider (Gexa) offers service (Gexa Green) with 100% of the power generated by wind, water, and solar.
That's cool, but they can only provide such service to a minority of electrical users, as those power sources will never ever be able to provide a more significant share of the power supply (unless of course our society regresses massively technology, willingly or otherwise).
That's not what I said at all.
Either you suffer from severe illiteracy, or you're setting up a strawman.
Where, pray tell, did I make any claims about efficiency in my post?
FWIW, I have no idea either way which is the more efficient. It's quite possible though iTMS takes more power (CDs sitting in a warehouse don't need any power - only the actual delivery process needs power).
Except that you don't have to burn fossil fuels to get your music to your house. Nor is there any fossil fuel expended in transporting the disk to the store.
Uh, yes you did have to burn fossil fuels..
It takes electrical energy to power all those computers, disks, routers, repeaters and cables. Energy which is in the main generated by burning stuff (Unless you live in France, where 80% odd of the electric grid is powered by nuclear plants).
Will 4 digits do? (I'm a reasonably long-time Free software fan boy too, if that helps).
That you said "Linux monoculture" means you're trolling.
Rubbish.
The GP is spot on in making the implicit point that, as monocultures are bad, a Linux monoculture would be as bad as any other. If the mantra of free software is choice, then the choice of Windows on OLPC is a good thing, regardless of how crap Windows is or how evil MS are. Let free software win on merit..
This is all presuming that OLPC has not compromised the cost to gain Windows support. A presumption that appears to be correct based on the information to hand.
Well, then "everybody" has been doing CVT since the 1950s - my grandfather drove a DAF car with CVT in the Netherlands back then. Despite that, very few people other than car geeks have heard of CVT and CVT cars are a rarity on the road..
electric cars don't need to shift gears.
Nor do internal combustion engine driven cars, with continuously variable transmission. Williams tested it in the early 90s - there's video of Coulthard accelerating from a standing start with the engine steady at peak revs the whole way, but it was banned by the FIA.
In the english legal system, from which the systems of the USA and others forked, barristers act not in their clients' interest, but primarily in the interests of justice. E.g. from the Irish Bar's Code of Conduct, (which forked only 80 odd years ago from the English one), in the section on practicing barristers: Barristers have an overriding duty to the Court to ensure in the public interest that the proper and efficient administration of justice is achieved and they must assist the Court in the administration of justice and must not deceive or knowingly mislead the court.
Barristers must promote and protect fearlessly and by all proper and lawful means their client's best interests and do so without regard to their own interest or to any consequences for themselves or to any other person including fellow members of the legal profession. And note from the beginning of the code that all members of the Bar, practicing barristers or not, have a duty to uphold the ethics and ethiquette of their profession.
I'd be curious what kinds of professional obligations US Bar and Law societies impose on their members, particularly as to how far they allow such members to advocate their clients cases beyond the interests of justice. The "rogue" lawyers you say exist in the USA possibly would liable to censure by the professional body regulating them.
If I published photo's of Darl Mcbride's house you can believe he wold have the police after me even if it was the wrong house.
Since when it is illegal to publish photos legally taken?
Sure it's illegal,
Actually, no, that's not sure at all.
What a crap list, no mention of Radia Perlman.
Lie detectors are way overused.
And meaningless. There's a reason they're inadmissible: no scientific credibility at all. (And yet the FBI still uses them to screen applicants, amazing).
Actually, it's more like "Theo the Counsellor" or "Theo the Lawyer".
Only creative elements can be copyrighted. I.e. a bunch of random bits can't be.
That said, I gather sometimes they distribute things like folk music, even porn films rather than junk, under the name of popular albums. So the RIAA (or agents acting on their behalf) apparently are quite happy to violate other people's copyright to "defend" their own (well, their member's copyrights).
The RIAA aren't making evidence up here, it's simply the question of if search results are proof enough.
Don't they also pay companies to flood P2P networks with junk files?
I don't see how a filename is indicative of anything, other than the string concerned having been distributed. Not even on balance of probability.