"G-WAN's small footprint and modularity make it easy to port on any platform. Starting with Windows (today's most widely used operating system) makes it possible for end-users to compare. There's no choice if you can't compare."
it's not clear.
Everything on this site screams CRAZY. Pretty funny.
"PayPal is the result of a March 2000 merger between Confinity and X.com. [...] X.com was founded by Elon Musk in March 1999, initially as an Internet financial services company."
The domain x.com predates the company X.com by some time, and the company acquired the domain for a (presumably substantial) price.
Nope, they didn't change their policy, they just changed the source of their imagery. There were getting their imagery from the USGS (same as Microsoft) and now they are not.
You're right. I don't think Google is the one censoring the photos. For a counter example, check out the photos of the White House on Google Maps and Microsoft Virtual Earth (http://local.live.com). Google's images (from a private source) do not appear to be censored, but Microsoft's (from the USGS, I believe) are heavily edited.
"Used one of the generic addresses that most website administrators have (i.e. webmaster@, administrator@)"
To expand on this point, even common first names are vulnerable. I've seen instances in my server logs where someone tries to send mail to a long list of common names.
I use a different address for every company I deal with. So, for instance, Amazon knows me as amazon@mydomain.com. If I should start getting spam on that address, not only can I shut it off, but I'll know exactly who leaked my address.
The problem with the email model is spam. I suspect that Google is concerned about rampant spam to their users if they open up their servers to the world.
The Miranda folks seem to be making a pretty shaky leap in logic.
1. The binary doesn't display our copyright text. 2. The notice that the binary displays originates in the source. 3. The GPL says the copyright notice must not be removed from the source. 4. Therefore, this is a violation.
Huh?!
They state that "inside the source code none of the copyright notices have been altered." That all the GPL really requires in terms of copyright notices.
The other "violation" they point out is that the old project files were removed and replaced with new project files. As long as the source shipped with the binary contains everything needed to build the binary, this is not a violation. That is, if Star Messenger was built using a newer build system, they only need to include project files for that newer build system. Star Messenger is free to remove files from the source that they don't use.
When they say the copy protection doesn't require any software to be installed, they mean that without any software, the copy protection prevents the audio from being plays. The software provides a loophole for playing the music on your computer.
In other words, the software that is loaded from the CD allows the music to be played, rather than preventing the music from being copied (as was previously alleged, I guess).
This is a very intelligent post. There is one thing I disagree with:
BREW is proprietary, controlled by Qualcomm. There are pluses and minuses to this, I'm not looking to start a religious war. Personally, I prefer open-source standards. Business-wise, it has been very helpful for companies that Qualcomm controls the BREW standard and the software infrastructure that supports the business model.
Java is almost as proprietary as BREW. If you want to make you're own runtime environment for Java, you either have to pay a license fee, or jump through some hoops to keep you developers away from the click-through license on Sun's SDK. I believe that in order to be on the standards group for Java, you have to sign a non-compete agreement. Sun would like us to believe that Java is open, but I disagree.
I really depends on your point of view. For a developer that wants to sell apps, this system works very well. For a developer who wants to create free software, this is not the right arrangement, nor is it the right arrangement for the hobbiest. Maybe in the future BREW will be improved to include the best of both worlds.
From my reading of your "refuation", none of what he says is incorrect
Um, what are you talking about? I listed the errors point by point. Yes, you do have to submit your app if you want to make it available through carriers. No, there is no other practical way to share your app. If you don't like that, that's your opinion. But the article states several things that are just plain untrue.
I wrote the following email to the author of the article:
Colin,
I just read your article at
http://www.colinfahey.com/2002dec14_j2me_cell_phon e/j2me_phone_apps.htm.
You state some things about BREW that are simply untrue:
The BREW version of the ARM compiler required to develop code for your
own phone costs $1,500.
This one is true, but work is being done to solve this problem. You
should soon be able to use GCC.
No application (even those you download yourself via a data cable) can
survive on your phone for more than three months, at which time you need
a new "signature" from QUALCOMM.
Test signatures expire after three months. A real signature, which is
required to in order to make your app available via a carrier, does not
have this limitation.
If you are developing an application for a BREW phone, you must submit
all source code, original and compiled art assets, and documentation to
QUALCOMM -- just to get a "signature".
You are absolutely not required to submit source code for anything. You
must submit your *binaries* for testing in order to have them signed. You
do not need to submit any part of your application to acquire a test
signature.
Once you develop an application or even simple resources like "desktop
wallpaper" or "ringer tunes", you need a closed technology called "Get
It Now" (a service of QUALCOMM, not the carrier) for people to download
your creations (for a fee).
Get It Now is Verizon's brand name for BREW. In order to make your app
available, you need to have it tested and signed. You then submit the app
to Qualcomm, which makes the app available to carriers. The carriers then
choose which apps they want to carry.
I hope you will correct these mistakes in your article. Thanks.
So do they not use gcc? I thought anything that was developed with gcc or included it's libraries also had to be OS (just a question, I have no idea)?
There are exemptions for that, so no, stuff built with GCC does not have to be GPL.
As for "leeching" off of Linux, how many people who actually use Linux (or any GPL code for that matter) have actually contibuted, regardless of whether or not they make any money from it (note that I would consider those who use it for their job someone who is making money from it).
Yep, Linux has a lot of leeches. Like I said, I don't have a problem with that.
If they utilize the tools available, don't break the rules governing it, and produce a good usable product, why not support them?
There are reasons to support them. But their contributions to Linux source is not one of them.
They release their changes to the Linux kernel, but that doesn't amount to much. Most of the software work that TiVo has done is in the form of closed source applications that run on top of Linux. So basically, they're leeching off Linux. I'm fine with that as long as they adhere to the GPL, but it's not something that is going to gain my loyalty.
Slashdot Mirror
When the answer to the question:
"Will Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc. be supported?"
is:
"G-WAN's small footprint and modularity make it easy to port on any platform. Starting with Windows (today's most widely used operating system) makes it possible for end-users to compare. There's no choice if you can't compare."
it's not clear.
Everything on this site screams CRAZY. Pretty funny.
I just tried sending a zip attachment to my Google Apps email, and it worked fine.
From wikipedia:
"PayPal is the result of a March 2000 merger between Confinity and X.com. [...] X.com was founded by Elon Musk in March 1999, initially as an Internet financial services company."
The domain x.com predates the company X.com by some time, and the company acquired the domain for a (presumably substantial) price.
Yup, she's pretty damn far from being a civil libertarian. She's just pandering, as politicians do.
Nope, they didn't change their policy, they just changed the source of their imagery. There were getting their imagery from the USGS (same as Microsoft) and now they are not.
You're right. I don't think Google is the one censoring the photos. For a counter example, check out the photos of the White House on Google Maps and Microsoft Virtual Earth (http://local.live.com). Google's images (from a private source) do not appear to be censored, but Microsoft's (from the USGS, I believe) are heavily edited.
To expand on this point, even common first names are vulnerable. I've seen instances in my server logs where someone tries to send mail to a long list of common names.
I use a different address for every company I deal with. So, for instance, Amazon knows me as amazon@mydomain.com. If I should start getting spam on that address, not only can I shut it off, but I'll know exactly who leaked my address.
It's always possible that your personal domain name infringes on someone's trademark. So best to choose something obscure.
The problem with the email model is spam. I suspect that Google is concerned about rampant spam to their users if they open up their servers to the world.
The Miranda folks seem to be making a pretty shaky leap in logic.
1. The binary doesn't display our copyright text.
2. The notice that the binary displays originates in the source.
3. The GPL says the copyright notice must not be removed from the source.
4. Therefore, this is a violation.
Huh?!
They state that "inside the source code none of the copyright notices have been altered." That all the GPL really requires in terms of copyright notices.
The other "violation" they point out is that the old project files were removed and replaced with new project files. As long as the source shipped with the binary contains everything needed to build the binary, this is not a violation. That is, if Star Messenger was built using a newer build system, they only need to include project files for that newer build system. Star Messenger is free to remove files from the source that they don't use.
When they say the copy protection doesn't require any software to be installed, they mean that without any software, the copy protection prevents the audio from being plays. The software provides a loophole for playing the music on your computer.
In other words, the software that is loaded from the CD allows the music to be played, rather than preventing the music from being copied (as was previously alleged, I guess).
It's a better source for news than a lot of so-called legitimate news sources.
Because if you don't stand up for your rights, your rights tend to get trampled.
Um, that's what I said.
I don't think Microsoft has sued Samba, have they? That seems like the obvious analogy.
Java is almost as proprietary as BREW. If you want to make you're own runtime environment for Java, you either have to pay a license fee, or jump through some hoops to keep you developers away from the click-through license on Sun's SDK. I believe that in order to be on the standards group for Java, you have to sign a non-compete agreement. Sun would like us to believe that Java is open, but I disagree.
Are you running my messages through some sort of translator or something? Can you quote one thing in my message that you disagree with?
The author has already updated his article to take into account my criticisms. I thank him for that.
I really depends on your point of view. For a developer that wants to sell apps, this system works very well. For a developer who wants to create free software, this is not the right arrangement, nor is it the right arrangement for the hobbiest. Maybe in the future BREW will be improved to include the best of both worlds.
Um, what are you talking about? I listed the errors point by point. Yes, you do have to submit your app if you want to make it available through carriers. No, there is no other practical way to share your app. If you don't like that, that's your opinion. But the article states several things that are just plain untrue.
Colin,
I just read your article at http://www.colinfahey.com/2002dec14_j2me_cell_pho
This one is true, but work is being done to solve this problem. You should soon be able to use GCC.
Test signatures expire after three months. A real signature, which is required to in order to make your app available via a carrier, does not have this limitation.
You are absolutely not required to submit source code for anything. You must submit your *binaries* for testing in order to have them signed. You do not need to submit any part of your application to acquire a test signature.
Get It Now is Verizon's brand name for BREW. In order to make your app available, you need to have it tested and signed. You then submit the app to Qualcomm, which makes the app available to carriers. The carriers then choose which apps they want to carry.
I hope you will correct these mistakes in your article. Thanks.
-Mark
The libraries are licensed under the LGPL, which allows closed source applications to link to them.
There are exemptions for that, so no, stuff built with GCC does not have to be GPL.
Yep, Linux has a lot of leeches. Like I said, I don't have a problem with that.
There are reasons to support them. But their contributions to Linux source is not one of them.
They release their changes to the Linux kernel, but that doesn't amount to much. Most of the software work that TiVo has done is in the form of closed source applications that run on top of Linux. So basically, they're leeching off Linux. I'm fine with that as long as they adhere to the GPL, but it's not something that is going to gain my loyalty.