Bah........New Yorkers think they're special, so when a small hurricane hits them, they aren't prepared, then complain about how damaging and unusual the hurricane was. Why? Because it happened to them.
It's fine to make a stable API, but if WebExtension makes GreaseMonkey impossible, then it's a broken API. It doesn't matter how stable that API is, it's broken. The developers who don't understand are geniuses of the apple bar kind.
Wow, that video. Zuck is proof that any idiot in America really can become a billionaire. Not every idiot, but in the course of events it will so happen that some idiots out there will succeed and become very rich. It touched on Zuck to make that this time around.
The only thing I'm feeling here is jealousy, because even if it has weird administrative problems, Google fiber is waaaay better than what I can get where I live. They gave her a $30 credit? Try getting that from Comcast..........
If they can run code on your device (which they would need to do to read the configuration), then the phone will already be pwned. Privilege escalation exploits are a dime a dozen, even on Linux.
I know it's a little more complicated than that, but I know that some of those handset devs will be tempted to try just modifying the kernel number to pass the test.
Right, but just copying them doesn't make their code a derivative work.
Yeah, it does. That's basically what a derivative work is.
Either way it's a copyright violation, but going GPL wouldn't have avoided the infringement.
The reason going GPL would have saved them (and actually, they have now switched to OpenJDK so they are fine) is because then they would have had a license to use it. It's not that the GPL is special, it's that Sun released Java under the GPL. Anyone is free to use it. But since Google released their version under the Apache license, they couldn't claim that defense.
I thought Google developed all their own code? Isn't it just the header files they copied from Java?
They did, but they copied the APIs. The court applied the Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison test, and found that substantial portions of the API were copyrightable. Not the pleasantest of circumstances, but anyway, that's where we are: copying header files can be a copyright violation.
The letter of the law is that APIs are copyrightable, but the spirit is that reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability is allowed.
It's more accurate to say that the letter of the law is that APIs are copyrightable, and the letter of the law is that reverse engineering is fair use.
It just seems ludicrous on its face that you wouldn't be able to run Java work-alike software when Java is freely downloadable from Oracle.
If Google had released their code under the GPL instead of the Apache license, they wouldn't have had a problem (because Sun released Java under the GPL). Overall it shows the importance of respecting licenses.
APIs are not copyright able. See Google vs. Oracle.
Wow, you completely misunderstood that case. APIs most definitely are copyrightable, as per the appellate court. The best you can hope to attain is a fair use defense, which Google tentatively won (though it may or may not be overturned, like I know). Reasonable summary here, a lot of situations are probably fair use, including interoperability.
In this case Google is acting just as every large corporate will: they want to avoid being attacked by vocal groups as they think that that will, eventually, lead to a reduction in profits.
In this case they've also been pressured by local and national politicians to do something about it. So it's more than just social pressure, it has some implicit legal threat behind it.
Sound silly? Take a look at some old former East German TV shows and films from the late 80's trying to promote their illusion of Socialist Ideals. They are hilarious.
Not that it's an excuse, but in what universe is it OK to have internet-connected data repositories that don't have a password? When is that EVER a good idea? Why can you even create a bucket without some kind of authorization on it?
Mostly for hosting web pages. People host their websites on AWS (obvously) and any static resources gets hosted in either S3 or a CDN.
you'll think "oh why - oh why did I not invest when it was new and cheap",
There's always another chance to make money. Right now, you can place an order for stock, which by the end of the week will make more money than if you had bought bitcoin. Identifying that stock is of course the tough part, but trying to figure it out will get you more than lamenting the high quality of your hindsight.
Slashdot Mirror
Bah........New Yorkers think they're special, so when a small hurricane hits them, they aren't prepared, then complain about how damaging and unusual the hurricane was. Why? Because it happened to them.
For comparison, check that Mexico just had the largest earthquake in a century.
Weather is not climate, and you can always find patterns and 'signs' in random sequences of events.
The incompetence is deep here. Unfortunately, when it comes to software, incompetence doesn't seem to be a crime.
It's basically the modern version of the Disney Channel, which is one of the few cable channels people actually wanted.
It's fine to make a stable API, but if WebExtension makes GreaseMonkey impossible, then it's a broken API. It doesn't matter how stable that API is, it's broken. The developers who don't understand are geniuses of the apple bar kind.
They've been banned in California fwiw.
Wow, that video. Zuck is proof that any idiot in America really can become a billionaire. Not every idiot, but in the course of events it will so happen that some idiots out there will succeed and become very rich. It touched on Zuck to make that this time around.
The only thing I'm feeling here is jealousy, because even if it has weird administrative problems, Google fiber is waaaay better than what I can get where I live. They gave her a $30 credit? Try getting that from Comcast..........
I'd bet that it's overall related to the fake news plague originating in places like Macedonia. At least, that seems like a more likely scenario than stealth-takeover-of-a-country-by-buying-Facebook-ads.
You didn't answer their question.
I did. I explained why it won't make it appreciably easier for the NSA/CIA/criminals to pwn your phone.
The Android OS is already running on your Android phone so what other code are you talking about?
I was answering a question. Don't expect to understand a conversation without understanding the context. Reading comprehension 101, fool.
Yeaeh you would have to modify the version number at compile time.
If they can run code on your device (which they would need to do to read the configuration), then the phone will already be pwned. Privilege escalation exploits are a dime a dozen, even on Linux.
# echo "3.18" > /proc/version
I know it's a little more complicated than that, but I know that some of those handset devs will be tempted to try just modifying the kernel number to pass the test.
That is true, good point.
Right, but just copying them doesn't make their code a derivative work.
Yeah, it does. That's basically what a derivative work is.
Either way it's a copyright violation, but going GPL wouldn't have avoided the infringement.
The reason going GPL would have saved them (and actually, they have now switched to OpenJDK so they are fine) is because then they would have had a license to use it. It's not that the GPL is special, it's that Sun released Java under the GPL. Anyone is free to use it. But since Google released their version under the Apache license, they couldn't claim that defense.
I thought Google developed all their own code? Isn't it just the header files they copied from Java?
They did, but they copied the APIs. The court applied the Abstraction, Filtration, Comparison test, and found that substantial portions of the API were copyrightable. Not the pleasantest of circumstances, but anyway, that's where we are: copying header files can be a copyright violation.
I don't see how that would have helped, since nothing in Android is a derivative work of Java.
Specifically, Google's implementation of the Java API is a derivative work of Sun's Java API. The rest of the code is fine.
The letter of the law is that APIs are copyrightable, but the spirit is that reverse engineering for the purpose of interoperability is allowed.
It's more accurate to say that the letter of the law is that APIs are copyrightable, and the letter of the law is that reverse engineering is fair use.
It just seems ludicrous on its face that you wouldn't be able to run Java work-alike software when Java is freely downloadable from Oracle.
If Google had released their code under the GPL instead of the Apache license, they wouldn't have had a problem (because Sun released Java under the GPL). Overall it shows the importance of respecting licenses.
APIs are not copyright able. See Google vs. Oracle.
Wow, you completely misunderstood that case. APIs most definitely are copyrightable, as per the appellate court. The best you can hope to attain is a fair use defense, which Google tentatively won (though it may or may not be overturned, like I know). Reasonable summary here, a lot of situations are probably fair use, including interoperability.
In this case Google is acting just as every large corporate will: they want to avoid being attacked by vocal groups as they think that that will, eventually, lead to a reduction in profits.
In this case they've also been pressured by local and national politicians to do something about it. So it's more than just social pressure, it has some implicit legal threat behind it.
Sound silly? Take a look at some old former East German TV shows and films from the late 80's trying to promote their illusion of Socialist Ideals. They are hilarious.
Do you have any links? They sound fun.
Not that it's an excuse, but in what universe is it OK to have internet-connected data repositories that don't have a password? When is that EVER a good idea? Why can you even create a bucket without some kind of authorization on it?
Mostly for hosting web pages. People host their websites on AWS (obvously) and any static resources gets hosted in either S3 or a CDN.
It's probably more accurate to compare it to a Forex exchange. It behaves similarly, it has similar value.
you'll think "oh why - oh why did I not invest when it was new and cheap",
There's always another chance to make money. Right now, you can place an order for stock, which by the end of the week will make more money than if you had bought bitcoin. Identifying that stock is of course the tough part, but trying to figure it out will get you more than lamenting the high quality of your hindsight.