And thanks to VME living on in the military (and industrial controls where EPLC is too slow) 1553 and Industry Pack live on as well. There are 1553 VME boards still used (okay barely) and IP VME carrier boards are common. Though I would say PMC (PCI Mezzanine Card) on VME processor boards made about as much inroads as Compact PCI.
UK law differs than US law on these things, but recently Hayward created a new org separate from the rest of BP to head these spill operations. This sadly seems to have been the same first step when they spun-off a shell corp to limit their liabilities in Indonesia a while back.
"While we are encouraged by our findings so far, the investigation continues and Sun and OMC cannot make any representations regarding encumbrances or the validity or invalidity of any patent claims or other intellectual property rights claims a third party may assert in connection with any OMC project or work product."
Incidentally the author makes a very good point in this quote:
"Another important aspect is the prior patent search: it is clear (and will be evident a few lines down) that On2 made a patent search to avoid specific implementation details; the point is that noone will be able to see this pre-screening,to avoid additional damages. In fact, one of the most brain damaged things of the current software patent situation is the fact that if a company performs a patent search and finds a potential infringing patent it may incur in additional damages for willful infringement (called “treble damages”). So, the actual approach is to perform the same analysis, try to work around any potential infringing patent, and for those “close enough” cases that cannot be avoided try to steer away as much as possible. So, calling Google out for releasing the study on possible patent infringement is something that has no sense at all: they will never release it to the public."
It seems I need to wait for someone to sue someone or I just consider this FUD at this point.
Basically (from thew point of view of Sun) it was always: you use this Sun stuff, we have a bunch of patents on our IP. If we get sued we take away the those guys rights to use our patents, we may sue them. If you get sued for using our IP by those guys, let us know. If you have any patents of your own, use them against that guy, then we'll take away their rights to use our patents, also we may sue them. There was nothing there like Sun would pay money to you or to cover court costs, or provide council, etc.
In any case there is no more Sun, in small part due to that NetApp suit, and what has Oracle said about indemnification?
I know you know this, cause I know who Florian Mueller is, but I want to make it clear to the slashdot crowd that Google is granting a royalty free grant to use the patents that they own or will own related to VP8. You only lose this grant if you sue Google in patent court essentially. This is GPL3/Apache style patent clauses.
Now real patent indemnification is very rare, especially the kind where Google would protect you from 3rd party patents. I just wanted to make that clear to the other slashdotters that may not know lots of details. You are right using VP8, you may be putting yourself at risk from other patent holders and I would personally feel much better if Google released information about its investigation into why it feels other patents, say from the MPEG-LA AVC patent pool, are not infringed. I did not want people to get the impression, simply because they're not experts, that Google might sue someone using VP8 under the terms of the Google patent grant.
It's gone. The license IS 3 clause BSD. You are permitted to use and copy per the BSD license terms. There is now an additional patent grant from Google. They let you use their patents related to WebM as long as you follow the terms in the patent grant (and those were very carefully crafted to be compatible with GPL3 and Apache conditions). Moreover the patent grant does not take away the rights premitted say in GPL2, so there is no trouble there ot with LGPL2 either.
I had to comment, I clicked on redundant when I wanted to click on insightful. I am sorry, I wish we still had to click a moderate button at the very end for a page. This should remove the bad moderation.
I personally would wait for the FSF to make a statement about GPL3 compatibility, reading both sections from both licenses does not give me a 100% sure feeling that it is necessarily so.
That link makes no claims that it is a FSF approved license, just that FSF is a proponent of using WebM format on the web. I would imagine a FSF approved license would be one of the GNU ones. They make statements about which licenses are GPL compatible at times, this was not such a statement either.
I am not a lawyer. Here's the gist. the license is not compatible with:
GPL, GPL2, LGPL2
compatible with:
BSD, MIT
likely compatible with:
Apache, CDDL, Mozilla
unlikely compatible with:
GPL3
This all boils down to the patent clause at the end. It makes further restrictions upon distribution. They are worded in a way that looks to be compatible with Apache and the like, but someone from the FSF should really step in and announce if the two different patent clauses are compatible in GPL3 and WebM license.
That's all that really matters to most, it is not an OSI approved license, since it has not been submitted. That matters to some organizations in choosing a license.
The shares themselves are known by the Huawei internal term "Virtual Restricted Shares", but according the company spokesman, this is "just a technical name" for otherwise "normal" shares.
Then says this:
Employees allocated shares have to return these when they leave Huawei's employ, according to the spokesman.
Then no those are not shares, everything the spokeman says at this point is likely a lie. Mr. Webb sums it up well:
"Unless and until Huawei becomes a stand-alone widely held listed company with employees free to trade their shares and without a controlling shareholder, these suspicions and allegations will likely continue."
There is a very insightful comment above that posits that BP had to wait until pressure dropped enough so that the topkill would work and the pumps and mud would be able to overcome the pressure of the well at all.
Actually Sun was crushed much earlier than that. The critical hits came from MS when they did their own incompatible and buggy Java and when they pushed AD instead of NIS+. After that there was no where Sun could thrive but in the server room, they had no choice.
So that's why svgalib took off on linux and X11 died, no wait that's not what happened at all. BTW in '96 I wrote the first linux svgalib and X11 drivers for some newish Cirrus Logic cards.
Artists are a**holes. They really are narcissistic bunch, the math geeks I had as friends also thought highly of themselves, but they were decent and gave credit. I have degrees in math and CS. I took some art classes. Two of my sculptures were stolen at the end of my last year (you kept them in the studio until the end of the term). They weren't even that great, very crude, it's just that I made them and they took a lot of time and work and I wanted to keep them. Then a few years later I saw a 'copy' of one of my sculptures in an alumni magazine in a piece about the young artist now in NY. It was the TA of some of the other classes at the time. There was no credit given like I saw this piece and it inspired me, etc. I let it go. Your sis is way better off in engineering and I in software.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not really FUD (fear uncertainty doubt), but you have a point that a lot of VP8 specific code was added to the h264 code.
And thanks to VME living on in the military (and industrial controls where EPLC is too slow) 1553 and Industry Pack live on as well. There are 1553 VME boards still used (okay barely) and IP VME carrier boards are common. Though I would say PMC (PCI Mezzanine Card) on VME processor boards made about as much inroads as Compact PCI.
Because methane and oil shooting a hundred feet into the air is sane, let's add fire like you suggest!
UK law differs than US law on these things, but recently Hayward created a new org separate from the rest of BP to head these spill operations. This sadly seems to have been the same first step when they spun-off a shell corp to limit their liabilities in Indonesia a while back.
BP was lobbying in secret Indiana officials to dump toxic crap into lake Michigan in exchange for some future jobs a few years back.
mod this up, insightful.
Oh of course because I run Safari as root.
Actually I think I found text showing there was NO indemnification wrt OMS:
http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/?p=420
"While we are encouraged by our findings so far, the investigation continues and Sun and OMC cannot make any representations regarding encumbrances or the validity or invalidity of any patent claims or other intellectual property rights claims a third party may assert in connection with any OMC project or work product."
Incidentally the author makes a very good point in this quote:
"Another important aspect is the prior patent search: it is clear (and will be evident a few lines down) that On2 made a patent search to avoid specific implementation details; the point is that noone will be able to see this pre-screening,to avoid additional damages. In fact, one of the most brain damaged things of the current software patent situation is the fact that if a company performs a patent search and finds a potential infringing patent it may incur in additional damages for willful infringement (called “treble damages”). So, the actual approach is to perform the same analysis, try to work around any potential infringing patent, and for those “close enough” cases that cannot be avoided try to steer away as much as possible. So, calling Google out for releasing the study on possible patent infringement is something that has no sense at all: they will never release it to the public."
It seems I need to wait for someone to sue someone or I just consider this FUD at this point.
Oooooooo that's shaaaaakey.
In any case the indemnification offered by Sun was always the weakest sort, here's a post from the CEO regarding the NetApp/ZFS debacle:
http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/harvesting_from_a_troll
Basically (from thew point of view of Sun) it was always: you use this Sun stuff, we have a bunch of patents on our IP. If we get sued we take away the those guys rights to use our patents, we may sue them. If you get sued for using our IP by those guys, let us know. If you have any patents of your own, use them against that guy, then we'll take away their rights to use our patents, also we may sue them. There was nothing there like Sun would pay money to you or to cover court costs, or provide council, etc.
In any case there is no more Sun, in small part due to that NetApp suit, and what has Oracle said about indemnification?
I know you know this, cause I know who Florian Mueller is, but I want to make it clear to the slashdot crowd that Google is granting a royalty free grant to use the patents that they own or will own related to VP8. You only lose this grant if you sue Google in patent court essentially. This is GPL3/Apache style patent clauses.
http://www.webmproject.org/license/additional/
Now real patent indemnification is very rare, especially the kind where Google would protect you from 3rd party patents. I just wanted to make that clear to the other slashdotters that may not know lots of details. You are right using VP8, you may be putting yourself at risk from other patent holders and I would personally feel much better if Google released information about its investigation into why it feels other patents, say from the MPEG-LA AVC patent pool, are not infringed. I did not want people to get the impression, simply because they're not experts, that Google might sue someone using VP8 under the terms of the Google patent grant.
You should see VLC and the like binaries that support WebM distributed today or tomorrow.
It's gone. The license IS 3 clause BSD. You are permitted to use and copy per the BSD license terms. There is now an additional patent grant from Google. They let you use their patents related to WebM as long as you follow the terms in the patent grant (and those were very carefully crafted to be compatible with GPL3 and Apache conditions). Moreover the patent grant does not take away the rights premitted say in GPL2, so there is no trouble there ot with LGPL2 either.
I had to comment, I clicked on redundant when I wanted to click on insightful. I am sorry, I wish we still had to click a moderate button at the very end for a page. This should remove the bad moderation.
Have you heard back? Could yo post the reply if you have? Thanks
I personally would wait for the FSF to make a statement about GPL3 compatibility, reading both sections from both licenses does not give me a 100% sure feeling that it is necessarily so.
That link makes no claims that it is a FSF approved license, just that FSF is a proponent of using WebM format on the web. I would imagine a FSF approved license would be one of the GNU ones. They make statements about which licenses are GPL compatible at times, this was not such a statement either.
I am not a lawyer. Here's the gist. the license is not compatible with:
GPL, GPL2, LGPL2
compatible with:
BSD, MIT
likely compatible with:
Apache, CDDL, Mozilla
unlikely compatible with:
GPL3
This all boils down to the patent clause at the end. It makes further restrictions upon distribution. They are worded in a way that looks to be compatible with Apache and the like, but someone from the FSF should really step in and announce if the two different patent clauses are compatible in GPL3 and WebM license.
That's all that really matters to most, it is not an OSI approved license, since it has not been submitted. That matters to some organizations in choosing a license.
If your company spokesman first tells you this:
The shares themselves are known by the Huawei internal term "Virtual Restricted Shares", but according the company spokesman, this is "just a technical name" for otherwise "normal" shares.
Then says this:
Employees allocated shares have to return these when they leave Huawei's employ, according to the spokesman.
Then no those are not shares, everything the spokeman says at this point is likely a lie. Mr. Webb sums it up well:
"Unless and until Huawei becomes a stand-alone widely held listed company with employees free to trade their shares and without a controlling shareholder, these suspicions and allegations will likely continue."
There is a very insightful comment above that posits that BP had to wait until pressure dropped enough so that the topkill would work and the pumps and mud would be able to overcome the pressure of the well at all.
I bet there are even lots of oil fields to be found in international waters in the gulf of Mexico anyway.
That is very astute, please somebody mod this up.
Sort of, Halliburton bought the company that long ago bought another which even longer ago bought IWC.
Actually Sun was crushed much earlier than that. The critical hits came from MS when they did their own incompatible and buggy Java and when they pushed AD instead of NIS+. After that there was no where Sun could thrive but in the server room, they had no choice.
So that's why svgalib took off on linux and X11 died, no wait that's not what happened at all. BTW in '96 I wrote the first linux svgalib and X11 drivers for some newish Cirrus Logic cards.
Artists are a**holes. They really are narcissistic bunch, the math geeks I had as friends also thought highly of themselves, but they were decent and gave credit. I have degrees in math and CS. I took some art classes. Two of my sculptures were stolen at the end of my last year (you kept them in the studio until the end of the term). They weren't even that great, very crude, it's just that I made them and they took a lot of time and work and I wanted to keep them. Then a few years later I saw a 'copy' of one of my sculptures in an alumni magazine in a piece about the young artist now in NY. It was the TA of some of the other classes at the time. There was no credit given like I saw this piece and it inspired me, etc. I let it go. Your sis is way better off in engineering and I in software.