First, despite your claim, you are not a lawyer. You have too many basic facts wrong.
Second, facts cannot be copyrighted, any more than the rules of a game can be.
ONLY the presentation or layout of those facts can be copyrighted. And it is ONLY the presentation or layout, not the underlying facts, that are protected.
Unique definitions are also not sufficient of themselves for copyright in software, if that unique definition is either required for interoperability, or is the only way to do something.
Under the merger doctrine, courts will not protect a copyrighted work from infringement if the idea underlying the work can be expressed only in one way, lest there be a monopoly on the underlying idea. In such an instance, it is said that the work’s idea and expression “merge.” Under the related doctrine of scenes a faire, courts will not protect a copyrighted work from infringement if the expression embodied in the work necessarily flows from a commonplace idea….
The Court went on, in part quoting from the famous litigation between Microsoft and Apple:
Likewise, when similar features of a work are “as a practical matter indispensable, or at least standard, in the treatment of a given idea, they are treated like ideas and are therefore not protected by copyright.”
Copyright law already addresses this in the general case. RMS got his opinion from lawyers who know about the specifics of copyright law, that there are plenty of things that are not copyrightable. And yes, in the US this IS settled law, unless you know of a higher court than the Supreme Court of the USofA.
In the more specific case of linux, you might also want to see the COPYING file, which is a modified version of the GPL v2 that explicitly states that using the header files to access kernel services doesn't create a derivative work, which was the whole point of the FUD-packers campaign, to convince handset manufacturers that there was a risk that their Android code was a derivative work and they'd have to share their source.
This should help end the recent FUD about the Android 'clean headers.
you must be new here..
No, I just believe that the FUD-packers will now try something else.
They don't seem to get it - that there are now a critical mass of people who not only don't buy into the FUD, but have an ideological interest in exposing the FUD for what it is.
Now that we've got the numbers, FUD not only becomes less effective for the other side, but draws attention to just how much of a threat open source is to them, and how hollow their arguments really are.
Think of it. This was an attack on Android specifically designed to get hand-set vendors worried that they would have to share their source, not just the usual "linux may have copyright problems blah blah blah". It failed, and in doing so discredits all the other similar FUD. People like Florian Mueller are the internet version of the boy who cried wolf - at this point, even if he did find something, who'd believe him?
I have 15 mod points. Instead of using them here, >I'm posting. What's your point?
Research that uses words like "may" in 2000 with no proof of conclusion in 2011
The research was written in 2000. You're free to search for other research, or even do your own.
The authors credentials are:
TERRANCE J. WILLIAMS, MICHELLE E. PEPITONE, SCOTT E. CHRISTENSEN, BRADLEY M. COOKE,
ANDREW D. HUBERMAN, NICHOLAS J. BREEDLOVE, TESSA J. BREEDLOVE, CYNTHIA L. JORDAN &
S. MARC BREEDLOVE
Department of Psychology and Graduate Groups Neuroscience, Endocrinology, 3210 Tolman Hall, MC 1650, University of California , Berkeley, California
94720-1650, USA
That they published in Nature is fine. What next, say that if someone publishes in Scientific American it's no good because SciAm is "pop science"?
Back in the days when large families were the norm, it was well known that any family with 10 boys (yes, there were plenty of them - remember, you might have 10 boys and 10 girls, but only 6 survived childbirth and the early weeks), the last boys would always be gay. That's a pretty direct link.
And why would we not expect there to be a biological basis for being gay or lesbian. ALL sexual behavior has a biological basis. It's not something that you need to learn, it's instinctive. Did you have to learn to be horny? Did you have to learn that certain sights and sounds should float your boat, turn your crank, or whatever? Did you have to learn that you should experience sexual attraction to someone?
Of course not! All these behaviors have a biological basis for straight people. Why should it be any different for gays and lesbians?
Color of eyes, hand preference, and skin color vary without difference in behavior or other negative effects.
Blue-eyed people are more likely to be near-sighted.
Left-handed people are more likely to have allergies, and are more likely to be mentally handicapped or above-average intelligence (the distribution curve is broader). They also tend to recover from strokes better.
Light-skinned people are more susceptible to skin cancers.
See any negatives in the above list?
On the other hand, homosexuality = inability to reproduce. Because there is no natural way that two women or two women reproduce.
Sure there is. Turkey baster + Internet. Or they can reproduce the same way anyone else does...
So then you would have to agree that the best solution is to allow same-sex marriage, since the health concerns you talk about (increased cancer risk) are more associated with multiple partners, in both same-sex and hetero relationships.
I don't believe people who go around for decades sexually abusing dozens of kids "have a choice" - there's something fundamentally "not right" upstairs, which is why they are dangerous, incurable, and the Catholic Church's position of moving them from place to place and thinking that they can "pray it away" has been so disastrous, with repeat offenders in multiple parishes.
1. Some of the inline functions aren't copyrightable. There are various exceptions to software copyright. You might want to check that. I've provided links elsewhere in the thread, as have others.
Yes, it's settled - you're not a shill, and I apologize for assuming it. I've just seen the same silly arguments repeated over and over, buying into the whole fud. How anyone can accept anything that Florian Mueller writes nowadays without an accompanying wheelbarrow of salt still amazes me.
From a technical standpoint, the FSF isn't always 100% accurate with respect to what constitutes linking, though they're usually more accurate than most on many topics.
Linking involves writing the addresses of called routines directly into your program. This can be done at compile time (static linking) or run time (dynamic linking). Hence why a linker was originally called a link editor. It "edited" the object code to patch it with the correct addresses to the statically linked code (back in the good old days when pretty much everything was statically linked except OS calls you'd make via interrupts).
This is in contrast, for example, to doing one or more register loads and then an interrupt, which involves no linking to the called routine, but can also call the same code. This gives you all the benefits of dynamic linking without the headaches.
One good example where the FSF totally is in the wrong wrt linking is the question of scripts such as php, that call other scripts. There is simply no way that the original script is ever linked. Not even in the runtime, since again, there is simply no patching of the "code" jump addresses - they don't exist. The script is run in the interpreter, which, while it might create an in-memory representation, or even pseudo-code or so-called "byte code" (a really bad name, since it's not really code that can be executed outside an interpreter), is irrelevant. After all, that final code is NOT run directly - it's interpreted, and the interpreter is what calls the supposedly "linked to" routine. The calling code simply cannot do that by itself. If the calling code can't directly call the "linked-in" code, then it cannot be said to be linked in, can it?
Of course, many people will dispute this, because to them, bytecode is "real code" - even though it can't be executed. Just like, to them, objects are real, even though they're not - they're just an abstraction we use to hide the underlying bits and bytes:-)
Now on to the question of the cleaned-up headers - if there's nothing left in them that is protectable by copyright, then there's no need for a copyright notice, no matter what the source, is there?
They DO ship the original files as well. However, the original headers aren't compatible with Android (the same as they aren't compatible wth many distros - almost everyone tweaks the headers for their distros. When's the last time you saw a plain vanillla kernel in a distro).
Measuring people's finger patterns may reveal some surprising information.
Animal models have indicated that androgenic steroids acting before birth might influence the sexual orientation of adult humans. Here we examine the androgen-sensitive pattern of finger lengths, and find evidence that homosexual women are exposed to more prenatal androgen than heterosexual women are; also, men with more than one older brother, who are more likely than first-born males to be homosexual in adulthood, are exposed to more prenatal androgen than eldest sons. Prenatal androgens may therefore influence adult human sexual orientation in both sexes, and a mother's body appears to 'remember' previously carried sons, altering the fetal development of subsequent sons and increasing the likelihood of homosexuality in adulthood.
In women, the index finger (2D, second digit) is almost the same length as the fourth digit (4D), although it may be slightly longer or shorter; in men, the index finger is more often shorter than the fourth. The greater 2D:4D ratio in females is established in two-year-olds. Because all non-gonadal somatic sex differences in humans appear to be the result of fetal androgens that masculinize males, the sex difference in the 2D:4D ratio probably reflects the prenatal influence of androgenon males.
In an anonymous survey, 720 adults who were attending public street fairs in the San Francisco area were asked their gender, age, sexual orientation, handedness, and the number and gender of children their mother had carried before them. As expected, men have significantly longer fingers than women (P < 0.001), and we confirmed reports that the 2D:4D ratio is greater in women than it is in men.
This sex difference in 2D:4D is greater on the right hand than on the left (Fig. 1a), indicating that the right-hand 2D:4D is more sensitive to fetal androgens than the left-hand ratio.The right-hand 2D:4D ratio of homosexual women was significantly more masculine (that is, smaller) than that of heterosexual women, and did not differ significantly from that of heterosexual men. Thus finger ratios, like otoacoustic emissions, suggest that at least some homosexual women were exposed to greater levels of fetal androgen than heterosexual women.
2D:4D ratio of homosexual men was not significantly different from that of heterosexual men for either hand (P > 0.09). However, segregating male subjects based on birth order provided support for the role of fetal androgens in male sexual orientation. The more older brothers a boy has, the more likely he is to develop a homosexual orientation. Confirming these reports, we also found that only homosexual men had a greater than expected proportion of brothers (P< 0.01) among their older siblings (229 brothers:163 sisters) compared with the general population (106 males:100females).
We found that the male 2D:4D ratio, which is unlikely to be influenced by social factors, also varies with the number of older brothers. The ratio was significantly more masculine in men with two or more older brothers than in men with no older brothers (Fig. 1b). There is also a significant correlation (r = -0.104; P < 0.05) between the number of older brothers and the right-hand 2D:4D ratio in men. If male subjects are divided by sexual orientation, the same pattern of later-born men displaying a more masculine 2D:4D is seen. Having older sisters has no apparent influence on male sexual orientation2, or on the 2D:4D ratio in men. No effect of older brothers or sisters on 2D:4D in women was observed, consonant with reports that older siblings exert no effect on female sexual orientation.
Our results suggest that events before birth (or even before conception in the case
The Bible doesn't say you can't be a homosexual, or that you should hide or lie about being homosexual, it just says that you shouldn't have sex with a person of the same gender.
Since you bring up gender, what about transsexuals. Is it okay for a transsexual woman to have sex with a man? After all, she still has an XY pair. If not, then is it okay for her to have sex with another woman, because, after all, she still has an XY pair?
How about the case back in the 'early 80s where both married partners got a sex change?
What about women with AIS (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome). Their birth certificate always said female, but their genes say XY.
(plus sticking a reproductive organ into a digestive tract is just disgusting for so many reasons)
... and yet it was a form of birth control between heterosexual couples throughout history.
Now here's the obvious question - do you feel the same way about blow jobs? Is that also disgusting? After all, it really just involves sticking a reproductive organ in the OTHER end of the digestive tract.
How about cunnilingus?
Depends on the family. I know people who've been completely disowned by their parents (and I think the friend in particular is going to become one of those, I just hope she's strong enough to take it), but I also know people whose parents, once they got over the initial shock, have become completely supportive and proud.
Trans is something that there just doesn't seem to be a middle ground. For people who it isn't a problem, they'll let you know right away, with pretty much the responses you laid out. For the rest, it IS a problem for them, and many of them get so entrenched in defending WHY they feel it's a problem (and justify why they can continue to act ignorantly, or tell you to change, or todays lie from the excuse-o-rama) that cutting off contact is the only practical/healthy solution.
... because family can be really, REALLY vicious, and undermining.
Homosexuality is unnatural, as in not a normal human trait.
Reality disagrees. Apparently it IS a normal human trait, for plenty of people. "Normal" is not synonymous with the majority". Or are you going to say that blue-eyed, left-handed, white-skinned people are unnatural and that these are not normal human traits?
If you had said it wasn't normal for YOU, nobody would object. Nobody is saying everyone should be gay or lesbian or straight or whatever,... oops, the fundies at exodus ARE saying everyone should be straight.:-(
Reading the bible is highly encouraged by churches because it tends to turn people into believers. It's amazing how well it works.
Most believers never read the whole bible.
Many pastors and priests never read the whole bible.
Then again, the lack of general knowledge of many pastors is appalling. For example, claiming from the pulpit that man is the only creature that engages in same-sex activity and beastiality. Guess they never saw that dog humping their leg (none so blind as those who will not see). Or the over 400 species that engage in same-sex behavior.
Reading the whole bible is a good cure - provided you read it with a truly open mind, and not as a blind believer who will accept everything, even nonsense, outright lies, and contradictions, on faith.
Why would anyone want to "repress those urges" if nobody's getting hurt by expressing them?
It's funny how some people think that two men or two women in a same-sex marriage somehow affects the validity of their marriage. Or how it's their god-appointed duty to make everyone into their own image of what a "god-fearing person" is.
The people pushing such "cures" have issues with their own sexuality.
I have a girlfriend who's in the middle of exactly that debate with herself right now, because her parents are vehemently religious, and she's trans. I'm really worried for how it's going to turn out for her, and I sincerely hope she can get the hell out of her parents' house and into a safe place soon.
Unfortunately, that's probably what it's going to take. Sometimes a bit of space and time can make a difference, but usually not. Friends are usually more accepting because, let's face it, you can pick your friends, but you're stuck with family.
Slashdot Mirror
Second, facts cannot be copyrighted, any more than the rules of a game can be.
ONLY the presentation or layout of those facts can be copyrighted. And it is ONLY the presentation or layout, not the underlying facts, that are protected.
Unique definitions are also not sufficient of themselves for copyright in software, if that unique definition is either required for interoperability, or is the only way to do something.
For example:
is not copyrightable.
url:http://www.ivanhoffman.com/scenes.html
In the more specific case of linux, you might also want to see the COPYING file, which is a modified version of the GPL v2 that explicitly states that using the header files to access kernel services doesn't create a derivative work, which was the whole point of the FUD-packers campaign, to convince handset manufacturers that there was a risk that their Android code was a derivative work and they'd have to share their source.
Hope this clears it up a bit :-
This should help end the recent FUD about the Android 'clean headers.
you must be new here..
No, I just believe that the FUD-packers will now try something else.
They don't seem to get it - that there are now a critical mass of people who not only don't buy into the FUD, but have an ideological interest in exposing the FUD for what it is.
Now that we've got the numbers, FUD not only becomes less effective for the other side, but draws attention to just how much of a threat open source is to them, and how hollow their arguments really are.
Think of it. This was an attack on Android specifically designed to get hand-set vendors worried that they would have to share their source, not just the usual "linux may have copyright problems blah blah blah". It failed, and in doing so discredits all the other similar FUD. People like Florian Mueller are the internet version of the boy who cried wolf - at this point, even if he did find something, who'd believe him?
Out of karma posts heh.
I have 15 mod points. Instead of using them here, >I'm posting. What's your point?
Research that uses words like "may" in 2000 with no proof of conclusion in 2011
The research was written in 2000. You're free to search for other research, or even do your own.
The authors credentials are: TERRANCE J. WILLIAMS, MICHELLE E. PEPITONE, SCOTT E. CHRISTENSEN, BRADLEY M. COOKE, ANDREW D. HUBERMAN, NICHOLAS J. BREEDLOVE, TESSA J. BREEDLOVE, CYNTHIA L. JORDAN & S. MARC BREEDLOVE
Department of Psychology and Graduate Groups Neuroscience, Endocrinology, 3210 Tolman Hall, MC 1650, University of California , Berkeley, California 94720-1650, USA
That they published in Nature is fine. What next, say that if someone publishes in Scientific American it's no good because SciAm is "pop science"?
And why would we not expect there to be a biological basis for being gay or lesbian. ALL sexual behavior has a biological basis. It's not something that you need to learn, it's instinctive. Did you have to learn to be horny? Did you have to learn that certain sights and sounds should float your boat, turn your crank, or whatever? Did you have to learn that you should experience sexual attraction to someone?
Of course not! All these behaviors have a biological basis for straight people. Why should it be any different for gays and lesbians?
That's not proof, that's supposition. The other side makes suppositions too.
It's published, peer-reviewed research, which is a heck of a lot better than what the other side offers :-)
Color of eyes, hand preference, and skin color vary without difference in behavior or other negative effects.
Blue-eyed people are more likely to be near-sighted.
Left-handed people are more likely to have allergies, and are more likely to be mentally handicapped or above-average intelligence (the distribution curve is broader). They also tend to recover from strokes better.
Light-skinned people are more susceptible to skin cancers.
See any negatives in the above list?
On the other hand, homosexuality = inability to reproduce. Because there is no natural way that two women or two women reproduce.
Sure there is. Turkey baster + Internet. Or they can reproduce the same way anyone else does ...
So then you would have to agree that the best solution is to allow same-sex marriage, since the health concerns you talk about (increased cancer risk) are more associated with multiple partners, in both same-sex and hetero relationships.
I don't believe people who go around for decades sexually abusing dozens of kids "have a choice" - there's something fundamentally "not right" upstairs, which is why they are dangerous, incurable, and the Catholic Church's position of moving them from place to place and thinking that they can "pray it away" has been so disastrous, with repeat offenders in multiple parishes.
(I know, this is slashdot, nobody's supposed to ever admit they were wrong, or apologize, hand in my geek card, etc ...)
1. Some of the inline functions aren't copyrightable. There are various exceptions to software copyright. You might want to check that. I've provided links elsewhere in the thread, as have others.
From a technical standpoint, the FSF isn't always 100% accurate with respect to what constitutes linking, though they're usually more accurate than most on many topics.
Linking involves writing the addresses of called routines directly into your program. This can be done at compile time (static linking) or run time (dynamic linking). Hence why a linker was originally called a link editor. It "edited" the object code to patch it with the correct addresses to the statically linked code (back in the good old days when pretty much everything was statically linked except OS calls you'd make via interrupts).
This is in contrast, for example, to doing one or more register loads and then an interrupt, which involves no linking to the called routine, but can also call the same code. This gives you all the benefits of dynamic linking without the headaches.
One good example where the FSF totally is in the wrong wrt linking is the question of scripts such as php, that call other scripts. There is simply no way that the original script is ever linked. Not even in the runtime, since again, there is simply no patching of the "code" jump addresses - they don't exist. The script is run in the interpreter, which, while it might create an in-memory representation, or even pseudo-code or so-called "byte code" (a really bad name, since it's not really code that can be executed outside an interpreter), is irrelevant. After all, that final code is NOT run directly - it's interpreted, and the interpreter is what calls the supposedly "linked to" routine. The calling code simply cannot do that by itself. If the calling code can't directly call the "linked-in" code, then it cannot be said to be linked in, can it?
Of course, many people will dispute this, because to them, bytecode is "real code" - even though it can't be executed. Just like, to them, objects are real, even though they're not - they're just an abstraction we use to hide the underlying bits and bytes :-)
Now on to the question of the cleaned-up headers - if there's nothing left in them that is protectable by copyright, then there's no need for a copyright notice, no matter what the source, is there?
They DO ship the original files as well. However, the original headers aren't compatible with Android (the same as they aren't compatible wth many distros - almost everyone tweaks the headers for their distros. When's the last time you saw a plain vanillla kernel in a distro).
Do you have any proof that homosexuality is not a preference? Because I haven't seen science offer any evidence yet.
And before you add, I don't support the Catholic views and their repressive beliefs.
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/homofinger/homo_finger.html
http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/readings/homofinger/homo_finger.html
The Bible doesn't say you can't be a homosexual, or that you should hide or lie about being homosexual, it just says that you shouldn't have sex with a person of the same gender.
Since you bring up gender, what about transsexuals. Is it okay for a transsexual woman to have sex with a man? After all, she still has an XY pair. If not, then is it okay for her to have sex with another woman, because, after all, she still has an XY pair? How about the case back in the 'early 80s where both married partners got a sex change? What about women with AIS (Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome). Their birth certificate always said female, but their genes say XY.
(plus sticking a reproductive organ into a digestive tract is just disgusting for so many reasons)
... and yet it was a form of birth control between heterosexual couples throughout history.
Now here's the obvious question - do you feel the same way about blow jobs? Is that also disgusting? After all, it really just involves sticking a reproductive organ in the OTHER end of the digestive tract. How about cunnilingus?
Depends on the family. I know people who've been completely disowned by their parents (and I think the friend in particular is going to become one of those, I just hope she's strong enough to take it), but I also know people whose parents, once they got over the initial shock, have become completely supportive and proud.
Trans is something that there just doesn't seem to be a middle ground. For people who it isn't a problem, they'll let you know right away, with pretty much the responses you laid out. For the rest, it IS a problem for them, and many of them get so entrenched in defending WHY they feel it's a problem (and justify why they can continue to act ignorantly, or tell you to change, or todays lie from the excuse-o-rama) that cutting off contact is the only practical/healthy solution.
Homosexuality is unnatural, as in not a normal human trait.
Reality disagrees. Apparently it IS a normal human trait, for plenty of people. "Normal" is not synonymous with the majority". Or are you going to say that blue-eyed, left-handed, white-skinned people are unnatural and that these are not normal human traits?
If you had said it wasn't normal for YOU, nobody would object. Nobody is saying everyone should be gay or lesbian or straight or whatever, ... oops, the fundies at exodus ARE saying everyone should be straight. :-(
On hot-button topics, subtlety is lost.
Dear God, you're gay.
... gets you a troll mod.
Dear God, you're gay :-)
... doesn't.
(I know, emoticons are more of a "chick thing" Emotional Expression Online: Gender Differences In Emoticon Use)
1. Download the app on homophobe's iPhone when they're not looking
2. Ask to borrow phone when others are around
3. "Hey, I didn't know you were gay!"
It's slashdot. People here think they know what everyone else should do.
It's religion. People there think they know what everyone else should do.
FTFY
Reading the bible is highly encouraged by churches because it tends to turn people into believers. It's amazing how well it works.
Most believers never read the whole bible.
Many pastors and priests never read the whole bible.
Then again, the lack of general knowledge of many pastors is appalling. For example, claiming from the pulpit that man is the only creature that engages in same-sex activity and beastiality. Guess they never saw that dog humping their leg (none so blind as those who will not see). Or the over 400 species that engage in same-sex behavior.
Reading the whole bible is a good cure - provided you read it with a truly open mind, and not as a blind believer who will accept everything, even nonsense, outright lies, and contradictions, on faith.
Why would anyone want to "repress those urges" if nobody's getting hurt by expressing them?
It's funny how some people think that two men or two women in a same-sex marriage somehow affects the validity of their marriage. Or how it's their god-appointed duty to make everyone into their own image of what a "god-fearing person" is.
The people pushing such "cures" have issues with their own sexuality.
I have a girlfriend who's in the middle of exactly that debate with herself right now, because her parents are vehemently religious, and she's trans. I'm really worried for how it's going to turn out for her, and I sincerely hope she can get the hell out of her parents' house and into a safe place soon.
Unfortunately, that's probably what it's going to take. Sometimes a bit of space and time can make a difference, but usually not. Friends are usually more accepting because, let's face it, you can pick your friends, but you're stuck with family.