Search for 2D-4D digit ratio. The growth rates of the index and ring finger are greatly influenced by prenatal hormones, which in turn are influenced by several factors, including birth order and the fetus's genes (which can both trigger and respond to hormones).
Testosterone usually makes the ring finger grow longer. There are ethnic variances, but generally, men's ring fingers are longer than their index fingers, gay men's ring fingers tend to be even longer (almost as long as their middle finger), and women's ring fingers tend to be shorter than their index fingers. M2F transsexuals often have the same 2D-4D digit ratio as women.
Testosterone and estrogen have influence on the development of the brain. The 2D-4D digit ratio gives us an indirect insight into what the uterine environment was like. So yes, there is evidence that sexual preference and gender identity are both something "you're born that way", unlike the people pushing this app, who claim it's a "lifestyle preference."
In a completely unrelated point, I find homosexuality disgusting for various reasons; plus, I'm a Catholic and have religious beliefs about sexuality. That has nothing to do with my opinion of the application though (I don't plan on downloading it),
1. It doesn't sound like a "completely unrelated point" to me...
2. You come across as a "the gentleman doth protest too much" type. Repressing?
As for your prior claim:
Because homosexuality is nothing more than a preference, a preference that some people clearly don't like
Do you have any proof that sexuality of any sort is a "preference"? Did you wake up one day and decide that you were going to be a straight sexually-repressed Catholic? Or did you become straight because Jesus, the Bible, or someone else told you it was the "right thing to do and you should put away those shameful lusts?
Or did you instead just realize that you instinctively preferred partners of the opposite sex? Same as gays and lesbians realize it despite all the social pressure to deny it?
IF the people who approve of homosexuality don't like the app, just don't download it! It's that simple!
... so please don't respond criticizing my beliefs and preferences.
If you don't want people criticizing your bigoty, JUST DON'T POST! It's that simple!
But since you put it out there, let's see some proof of your claim that heterosexuality, homosexuality, lesbianism, transsexuality, etc., are "nothing more than a preference."
There may be no specific complains yet, but Linus has been quite explicit and unambiguous in the past about how he thinks the GPL applies to Linux kernel headers:
In short: you do _NOT_ have the right to use a kernel header file (or any other part of the kernel sources), unless that use results in a GPL'd program....
BUT YOU CAN NOT USE THE KERNEL HEADER FILES TO CREATE NON-GPL'D BINARIES.
Of course, Linus is not a lawyer, and his interpretation of GPL may not be correct. But the gist of the original story was that it was legal analysis made by an IP lawyer, and he essentially agreed with Linus.
Oh, I know, I know! Linus is a paid Microsoft shill! Right?
Okay, now you're definitely trolling, seeing as we've dealt with that question numerous times, and the COPYING file makes it clear that you CAN use kernel headers to make user-land binaries without triggering the "distribution" clause.
What you can't do is make a closed kernel.
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Linus Torvalds
GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE Version 2, June 1991
So, since the limitations of the GPL (distribution of source) have been expressly waived for userland programs that only call kernel services, there is NO copyright violation for using the header files in such a fashion, ever.
But keep shilling. It gives more opportunity to refute your arguments.
is simply this... when a new version of the GPL comes out and you wish to continue using the GPL, all future licensed software must be released under the new GPL license. GPL 3 is amazing, but too few people are using it.
First, the GPL forbids that sort of restriction.
Second, what if some future version of the GPL contains something that makes it less free?
Third, the GPL v3 has some flaws. Android wouldn't be commercially possible if linux were GPL v3.
This is not about userspace API headers (which are partially defined by POSIX spec, but partially Linux specific, by the way).
This is about kernel headers. Their content is not defined by any standard.
You're wrong. This is about a cleaned-up header file that lets user-space programs call kernel services, as permitted by the COPYING file (a non-standard modified version of the GPL that specifically says user-space programs can call kernel services without invoking the "derived works" clause) that comes with the linux kernel source code.
And the content of the cleaned-up file IS stuff defined by POSIX or other standards, structures, etc. This is not about including chunks of the kernel in user-space programs.
Astro-turf much?
(okay, you might have made an honest mistake, but wouldn't it have been easy to check first?)
Excellent point, but probably lost on most people.
And this is what the FUDsters like Florian Mueller are hoping for. It's funny how everyone who attacks open source ends up adopting the same tired tactics.
How can they be infringing if the code in question didn't originate with linux? A lot of the values and structures are specified in external standards, such as POSIX.
Other parts are okay to copy because of the "one best way" exemption to copyright law.
And still others are not protected because they are permitted by the linux license, which is NOT the standard GPL. Read the first few lines of COPYING that comes with the linux source code.
The comments, etc., on the other hand, are protected - which is why they're stripped out.
So in that case dynamically linking to GPL libraries is always legal, no matter what licence my binary uses. So why did Stallman see the need to create the LGPL?
As I understand it, one of the central points of the GPL is that dynamic linking entails a derived work.
Read the COPYING file that comes with the linux source. It's a modified form of the GPL, version 2, not the "standard" version 2 GPL. The very first sentences give you specific permission to call kernel code.
This is why Florian Mueller's "analysis" of "look at all these lines of code that are dependent on the kernel" is so full of it - because it's not a problem when you have explicit permission..
Also, calling code isn't the same as linking to it. For example,setting up some registers to point to data structures and hold some direct values, generating a software interrupt to let the kernel know it needs to do something, and then letting the kernel do it's thing, has never been considered as linking by anybody.
It's why it's in the kernel code to begin with - it doesn't have to originate with the kernel devs - since there is only one way to do it, and it's a standard technique, they too can copy it, say, from the chip manufacturers own documentation, without being accused of copyright infringement.
Copyright law does not protect ideas, program logic, algorithms, systems, methods, concepts, or layouts.
Copying sections of code or duplicating methods: only for one of the following reasons:
efficiency: there is only one way to express an idea standard techniques: it is a very common interface or approach for compatibility processes: how it is done. The description of how it is done may be covered. Patent law may protect certain processes. data: facts stored in a program. However, arrangement of data may be protected
There's no contradiction whatsoever. You cannot use the unmodified headers to create non-gpl'd binaries - binaries with chunks of kernel code embedded in them. You CAN use them to create binaries that just call kernel system functions.
Some header files just define data structures and calling interfaces. The "clean" headers only have those that are appropriate for Android.
Remember, it's the COPYING file that gives you the license, and the first few lines clearly states this is okay.
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
Here's the very first lines at the top of/usr/src/linux-2.6.37.1-1..2/COPYING
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
So just using the normal api/abi is specifically exempted from the whole "derived work" question by the authors, and ultimately, it is the author's right to set out the terms for copying and distribution, subject to current law.
What Mueller & Co are pushing is FUD. If the author says "this use is not a derived work", then you have a right to depend on that assertion.
Now, all people need is the portions that actually implement the above - except that the source code doesn't implement it properly for an Android user program, and you don't need most of the headers anyway, so why not make a new header, a "cleaned-up" header, that removes the 99% of code that isn't needed, all the comments, re-write the functions that are different, change/re-order the number of parameters as needed, get rid of several levels of #defines where possible, etc.?
If all you've got left is some code to make calls as outlined above, it probably doesn't rise to the level of copyrightable, but whether it does or not is mooted by the declaration at the top of COPYING. No need to redistribute source that just uses kernel serves via system calls.
BTW, why not try to open a few kernel source files. Many don't contain copyright notices... some don't even have the authors name. So you end up depending on the notice in COPYING.
Hope this makes it a bit clearer:
1. Google may be right about copyright in this case
2. Even if they're not, there is no requirement to distribute the source of Android apps.
Fewer LOC to process, smaller files to read, etc. However, there's more than that - the simplifications and leaving out the unneeded parts also make a difference. Additionally, by leaving out the unneeded parts, if someone DOES call them accidentally, you get a compile-time error.
Header files that express APIs, perhaps less so, because the API itself is not copyrightable.
The files in question are the output of a script (also distributed) that strips out not just comments, but also many of the structures and functions, etc., from the headers that are incompatible with Android.
It also re-writes other functions, structs, and macros, replacing them with either more concise, or Android-specific ones.
In other words, what's left is just a header that makes API calls. The "creativity" isn't in the header, it's in the script.
The file in question is one generated by a script from the original source. You get the original source, plus the script to generate the file, which is a "cleaned up" version of the headers that removes anything inconsistent with Android, to allow apps to compile clean and quick.
How is that a GPL copyright violation? The GPL requires that you include any intermediary scripts that do this, which is what google did.
These are "cleaned-up header files that you can use with Android, because the original kernel headers are a bit of a mess, as explained here
Bionic comes with a set of 'clean' Linux kernel headers that can safely be
included by userland applications and libraries without fear of hideous
conflicts. for more information why this is needed, see the "RATIONALE"
section at the end of this document.
these clean headers are automatically generated by several scripts located
in the 'bionic/kernel/tools' directory, which process a set of original
and unmodified kernel headers in order to get rid of many annoying
declarations and constructs that usually result in compilation failure.
In other words, they're complying with the GPL by including the scripts necessary to generate the code.
Florian Mueller is a liar and enemy of open source, has been for years. This is the guy who went around saying open source destroys value.
You're allowed to modify the header files and distribute the modified header files. If you had actually checked how these header files are generated, they're to clean up the linux source to remove stuff that isn't needed for Android, or that conflicts with Android.
Google didn't replace any copyright notices - just that everything not needed is removed, comments and all, to make for quicker compiles.
After you've read it, if you still have a problem, to put this into perspective... let's take a proprietary platform, Windows. There is nothing to prevent me
from creating a set of optimized headers that wrap around the windows api,
leaving out unnecessary parameters, constants, and code definitions that will
conflict with my userland application code, and defining new
"convienence" methods, functions, classes and structures.
If I then use the "cleaned up" headers to create an application, that
application is no less my work because I used the "cleaned up" version
as opposed to the original kernel source.
Proprietary applications can use these "cleaned up" header files
without falling afoul of the GPL, the same as if they had used the original
headers. Otherwise, the "binary blob" device driver problem would
clearly not exist.
From the GPL v2:
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered
independent and separate works in themselves, then
this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.
An application distributed separately, just like a driver distributed
separately, is not "derived" from the kernel source.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim
rights or contest your rights to work written entirely
by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right
to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.
It's a tricky balance. The kernel is gpl, and the code is available, including
the "cleaned up headers" code, as per the gpl.
Just remember, an application that calls kernel functions is not "derived
from" the kernel any more than an application that calls the windows api is
"derived from" windows.
I believe this is just more FUD on the part of certain parties... ask yourself
"cui bono", then follow the money to the usual suspects.
We're not thinking of "you", Tokyo foreigner. We're thinking of Japanese people. You know, the ones who were actually affected? The one type of news story we've had an abundance of, repeated above, is "well, good news, Tokyo where all the foreigners and other important people live is safe. Some towns called with rustic hick names got washed away and thousands killed but it wasn't us so no big loss...OMG a nuke plant might blow up and threaten Tokyo! Attention journalists, run away!"
You're being a jerk. Why not do the math. This was a disaster that makes 9/11 look relatively insignificant,in scope, in lives lost, and in economic terms.
People may not be able to live there yes, but Tjernobyl has shown proven the saying "life finds a way" true again. The area around Tjernobyl has become one of the most biologically diverse in the area... probably in large part due to the lack of humans around.
Mutants will do that...
Just joking... stop looking at me so funny, 3-eyes!.
Thanks, but according to what you link to, it's still illegal, but the NFL won't enforce it under those circumstances. It speaks of a bill that was proposed but not passed. So it's not legal, and they can start to enforce it again any time they so choose.
Slashdot Mirror
Homosexual? There's an app for that!
Metrosexual? There's Apple for that!
FTFY
Search for 2D-4D digit ratio. The growth rates of the index and ring finger are greatly influenced by prenatal hormones, which in turn are influenced by several factors, including birth order and the fetus's genes (which can both trigger and respond to hormones).
Testosterone usually makes the ring finger grow longer. There are ethnic variances, but generally, men's ring fingers are longer than their index fingers, gay men's ring fingers tend to be even longer (almost as long as their middle finger), and women's ring fingers tend to be shorter than their index fingers. M2F transsexuals often have the same 2D-4D digit ratio as women.
Testosterone and estrogen have influence on the development of the brain. The 2D-4D digit ratio gives us an indirect insight into what the uterine environment was like. So yes, there is evidence that sexual preference and gender identity are both something "you're born that way", unlike the people pushing this app, who claim it's a "lifestyle preference."
1. It doesn't sound like a "completely unrelated point" to me ...
2. You come across as a "the gentleman doth protest too much" type. Repressing?
As for your prior claim:
Do you have any proof that sexuality of any sort is a "preference"? Did you wake up one day and decide that you were going to be a straight sexually-repressed Catholic? Or did you become straight because Jesus, the Bible, or someone else told you it was the "right thing to do and you should put away those shameful lusts?
Or did you instead just realize that you instinctively preferred partners of the opposite sex? Same as gays and lesbians realize it despite all the social pressure to deny it?
If you don't want people criticizing your bigoty, JUST DON'T POST! It's that simple!
But since you put it out there, let's see some proof of your claim that heterosexuality, homosexuality, lesbianism, transsexuality, etc., are "nothing more than a preference."
That's one of the problems of a comment system that STILL doesn't let you update comments.
There may be no specific complains yet, but Linus has been quite explicit and unambiguous in the past about how he thinks the GPL applies to Linux kernel headers:
In short: you do _NOT_ have the right to use a kernel header file (or any other part of the kernel sources), unless that use results in a GPL'd program. ...
BUT YOU CAN NOT USE THE KERNEL HEADER FILES TO CREATE NON-GPL'D BINARIES.
Of course, Linus is not a lawyer, and his interpretation of GPL may not be correct. But the gist of the original story was that it was legal analysis made by an IP lawyer, and he essentially agreed with Linus.
Oh, I know, I know! Linus is a paid Microsoft shill! Right?
Okay, now you're definitely trolling, seeing as we've dealt with that question numerous times, and the COPYING file makes it clear that you CAN use kernel headers to make user-land binaries without triggering the "distribution" clause.
What you can't do is make a closed kernel.
So, since the limitations of the GPL (distribution of source) have been expressly waived for userland programs that only call kernel services, there is NO copyright violation for using the header files in such a fashion, ever.
But keep shilling. It gives more opportunity to refute your arguments.
is simply this... when a new version of the GPL comes out and you wish to continue using the GPL, all future licensed software must be released under the new GPL license. GPL 3 is amazing, but too few people are using it.
First, the GPL forbids that sort of restriction.
Second, what if some future version of the GPL contains something that makes it less free?
Third, the GPL v3 has some flaws. Android wouldn't be commercially possible if linux were GPL v3.
This is not about userspace API headers (which are partially defined by POSIX spec, but partially Linux specific, by the way).
This is about kernel headers. Their content is not defined by any standard.
You're wrong. This is about a cleaned-up header file that lets user-space programs call kernel services, as permitted by the COPYING file (a non-standard modified version of the GPL that specifically says user-space programs can call kernel services without invoking the "derived works" clause) that comes with the linux kernel source code.
And the content of the cleaned-up file IS stuff defined by POSIX or other standards, structures, etc. This is not about including chunks of the kernel in user-space programs.
Astro-turf much?
(okay, you might have made an honest mistake, but wouldn't it have been easy to check first?)
Excellent point, but probably lost on most people.
And this is what the FUDsters like Florian Mueller are hoping for. It's funny how everyone who attacks open source ends up adopting the same tired tactics.
Other parts are okay to copy because of the "one best way" exemption to copyright law.
And still others are not protected because they are permitted by the linux license, which is NOT the standard GPL. Read the first few lines of COPYING that comes with the linux source code.
The comments, etc., on the other hand, are protected - which is why they're stripped out.
So in that case dynamically linking to GPL libraries is always legal, no matter what licence my binary uses. So why did Stallman see the need to create the LGPL?
As I understand it, one of the central points of the GPL is that dynamic linking entails a derived work.
Read the COPYING file that comes with the linux source. It's a modified form of the GPL, version 2, not the "standard" version 2 GPL. The very first sentences give you specific permission to call kernel code.
This is why Florian Mueller's "analysis" of "look at all these lines of code that are dependent on the kernel" is so full of it - because it's not a problem when you have explicit permission..
Also, calling code isn't the same as linking to it. For example,setting up some registers to point to data structures and hold some direct values, generating a software interrupt to let the kernel know it needs to do something, and then letting the kernel do it's thing, has never been considered as linking by anybody.
http://www.auraria.edu/services/reserves/exemptions
It's why it's in the kernel code to begin with - it doesn't have to originate with the kernel devs - since there is only one way to do it, and it's a standard technique, they too can copy it, say, from the chip manufacturers own documentation, without being accused of copyright infringement.
Some header files just define data structures and calling interfaces. The "clean" headers only have those that are appropriate for Android.
Remember, it's the COPYING file that gives you the license, and the first few lines clearly states this is okay.
Here's the very first lines at the top of /usr/src/linux-2.6.37.1-1..2/COPYING
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
So just using the normal api/abi is specifically exempted from the whole "derived work" question by the authors, and ultimately, it is the author's right to set out the terms for copying and distribution, subject to current law.
What Mueller & Co are pushing is FUD. If the author says "this use is not a derived work", then you have a right to depend on that assertion.
Now, all people need is the portions that actually implement the above - except that the source code doesn't implement it properly for an Android user program, and you don't need most of the headers anyway, so why not make a new header, a "cleaned-up" header, that removes the 99% of code that isn't needed, all the comments, re-write the functions that are different, change/re-order the number of parameters as needed, get rid of several levels of #defines where possible, etc.?
If all you've got left is some code to make calls as outlined above, it probably doesn't rise to the level of copyrightable, but whether it does or not is mooted by the declaration at the top of COPYING. No need to redistribute source that just uses kernel serves via system calls.
BTW, why not try to open a few kernel source files. Many don't contain copyright notices ... some don't even have the authors name. So you end up depending on the notice in COPYING.
Hope this makes it a bit clearer:
1. Google may be right about copyright in this case
2. Even if they're not, there is no requirement to distribute the source of Android apps.
Fewer LOC to process, smaller files to read, etc. However, there's more than that - the simplifications and leaving out the unneeded parts also make a difference. Additionally, by leaving out the unneeded parts, if someone DOES call them accidentally, you get a compile-time error.
Header files that express APIs, perhaps less so, because the API itself is not copyrightable.
The files in question are the output of a script (also distributed) that strips out not just comments, but also many of the structures and functions, etc., from the headers that are incompatible with Android.
It also re-writes other functions, structs, and macros, replacing them with either more concise, or Android-specific ones.
In other words, what's left is just a header that makes API calls. The "creativity" isn't in the header, it's in the script.
How is that a GPL copyright violation? The GPL requires that you include any intermediary scripts that do this, which is what google did.
In other words, they're complying with the GPL by including the scripts necessary to generate the code. Florian Mueller is a liar and enemy of open source, has been for years. This is the guy who went around saying open source destroys value.
Google didn't replace any copyright notices - just that everything not needed is removed, comments and all, to make for quicker compiles.
Read the RATIONALE section at the bottom.
After you've read it, if you still have a problem, to put this into perspective ... let's take a proprietary platform, Windows. There is nothing to prevent me
from creating a set of optimized headers that wrap around the windows api,
leaving out unnecessary parameters, constants, and code definitions that will
conflict with my userland application code, and defining new
"convienence" methods, functions, classes and structures.
If I then use the "cleaned up" headers to create an application, that application is no less my work because I used the "cleaned up" version as opposed to the original kernel source.
Proprietary applications can use these "cleaned up" header files without falling afoul of the GPL, the same as if they had used the original headers. Otherwise, the "binary blob" device driver problem would clearly not exist.
From the GPL v2:
An application distributed separately, just like a driver distributed separately, is not "derived" from the kernel source.
It's a tricky balance. The kernel is gpl, and the code is available, including the "cleaned up headers" code, as per the gpl.
Just remember, an application that calls kernel functions is not "derived from" the kernel any more than an application that calls the windows api is "derived from" windows.
I believe this is just more FUD on the part of certain parties ... ask yourself
"cui bono", then follow the money to the usual suspects.
We're not thinking of "you", Tokyo foreigner. We're thinking of Japanese people. You know, the ones who were actually affected? The one type of news story we've had an abundance of, repeated above, is "well, good news, Tokyo where all the foreigners and other important people live is safe. Some towns called with rustic hick names got washed away and thousands killed but it wasn't us so no big loss...OMG a nuke plant might blow up and threaten Tokyo! Attention journalists, run away!"
You're being a jerk. Why not do the math. This was a disaster that makes 9/11 look relatively insignificant,in scope, in lives lost, and in economic terms.
Would it be asking too much?
They may have lost all six reactors as in none may ever produce power again where as Chernobyl still continues to operate
You really need to get with the times - your information dates from the end of the last millennium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Chernobyl_after_the_disaster
People may not be able to live there yes, but Tjernobyl has shown proven the saying "life finds a way" true again. The area around Tjernobyl has become one of the most biologically diverse in the area... probably in large part due to the lack of humans around.
Mutants will do that ...
Just joking ... stop looking at me so funny, 3-eyes!.
Thanks, but according to what you link to, it's still illegal, but the NFL won't enforce it under those circumstances. It speaks of a bill that was proposed but not passed. So it's not legal, and they can start to enforce it again any time they so choose.