Er, that's more that 1 trading system. Plus this wasn't a bug in a US equities exchange. Also, GP was saying a bug in a piece of software only needs to get fixed once, he never said that was before release.
Not if the order or quote makes no sense or somehow isn't valid. In this case it actually caused ongoing problems with the exchange. Probably caused an overflow in the book handling logic in the matching engine. Erroneous trades that result from bad behaviour in the exchange software should be rolled back, as they are not the fault of the trading parties. If we were simply talking about the order being overfilled, then I'd agree with you.
Buying and selling are treated as separate cases on the 20 or so exchanges I have experience with. The one area where negatives ARE used is in multi-legged instruments such as calendar spreads, but that's in the price not the quantity.
I'd suspect it was triggered by a bug at a trading company with a seat on the exchange. Some exchange protocols are in binary. The exchange may have validated only one side, assuming qtys would always be positive.
Your last sentence is the most astute. It's the reason things haven't gone further already: so much is on the line. Other countries don't believe they can afford to allow the dollar to fail. What happens? I can't predict. But we CAN get the budget under control without riots. If only the politicians would have the courage to risk it.
I agree with most if that. Btw I didn't grow up in the US, so I wasnt indoctrinated like my kids are. I really haven't heard the racism from the left, but I concede that I may just not have heard it. I really don't know why it's political suicide to fix the budget. I also don't know why we can't cut defense. We could balance the budget easily if the politicians were willing. What will it take? A downgrade of our treasuries?
Except that I've listened to a lot of right and left wing radio, and I've never heard a left winger use the term towel heads, etc.. I do hear it on the right. Also, on the right are all the bigoted views... I haven't heard the same kind of crap from the left that I hear from the right all the time... Homophobic. Anti women. Xenophobic. You name it. And I have many conservative views: particularly financial. I believe in small government, responsible fiscal policy, balancing the budget, free market. Todays GOP is lead by nutjobs. When they've had power they haven't shrunk government (the opposite) nor have they balanced the budget (the last surfeit was under Clinton). I don't know how a true conservative can vote GOP these days.
This is the scenario as RTS sees it: RTS wrote "A" (a Linux kernel module that can also be compiled to link against another OS) RTS supplies "A" along with the Linux kernel under the GPL RTS additionally writes "B" which works with "A".
As to linking, assume B links with A, and A can link with the Linux kernel. Assume that A linked with B is never linked with the Linux kernel. Also assume that A+B linked are only ever distributed without any GPLed software.
This is my understanding of RTS's position.
If the above is true, no theory under copyright law can prevent RTS from licensing "B" or not at their will. Neither can it force RTS to release "B" under the GPL. I don't see any way you can read the terms in the GPL to mean you are agreeing to release "B" under the GPL, since "B" is not a derivative of the kernel (it hasn't been near it), and even if "B" *is* a derivative of "A" (doubtful, except when they are combined), RTS is the sole copyright holder of "A" and has full rights therein.
To give a simplified example: I can release a piece of software under the GPL, then improve it (creating a derivative work), but then keep the improvements to myself and never release them. I don't need to accept the GPL since I own the copyrights.
Assuming, in your example, A and B are object files then linking them will copy both A and B into the result. That is not the case with a module. When a module is linked against the kernel, it does not copy the kernel into the result (duh). That's irrelevant anyway. If A is the kernel and I wrote B, whether or not B may be linked against A is irrelevant: I retain full rights to B. Even if I release parts of B under a license (such as the GPL), I still retain my copyright to the whole, and may at will release any or all of it under any license I choose.
I don't buy the argument that linking makes any difference. It's not a creative step - it's done completely automatically by the linker: it's mechanical. Thew cannot be any copyright in anything that comes from such a step. Therefore I claim that linking cannot, in an of itself, result in a derivative work. And using an API cannot either. Howevet, IANAL.
I missed the part about "RTS *is* using GPL code". Using isn't covered by copyright law. Copying and distributing are. If you mean RTS are distributing GPL then there are the following cases: 1. They own all the copyrights to the code they are distributing. 2. There is at least some code that they are distributing which they do not own the copyrights to.
If 1 is true, then they are perfectly within the law. If you are claiming 2, then I hope you have evidence, otherwise such a claim is dangerous. If wrong your comment is defamatory. Plus they may still be ok if they also have an additional license from the other copyright holders.
1. Derivative is a legal term defined by copyright law. 2. The 10 lines in question were the only lines aside from API definitions. It's the API portion that is important here, and formed the holdings in the case.
It has never made any sense to me the claim that a piece of code is considered a derivative if the Linux kernel if is uses the API and forms a module. I think Oracle vs Google weakens this claim.
I didn't bring up Oracle vs Google, Larry did. Apparently there was argument that including header files and using the Linux APIs automatically makes software a derivative. This position is absurd. If that's the whole argument then it's clear cut. That's my only point.
I know quite a lot about the Oracle vs Google case, and I agree this is quite different. However, it's not the specifics of the case that are important: it's the HOLDINGs.
Even if some code were included, any damages would take into account the proportion of the infringing code to non infringing code. Unless they were egregious, thus wouldn't be terribly much. There really isn't anything to see here except dirty laundry.
I'm afraid that seems pretty clear cut. No developer in their right mind would claim that including APIs induces a derived work (LOL Oracle). It's actually a shame that this took place in public. Whichever way it goes someone looks bad. There could be defamation or libel claims.
Slashdot Mirror
Beer goggles is a great idea!
"He looks at the world thru beer tinted goggles!" :)
"Enterprise Level Support Systems"
Sounds more like a marketing term than real functionality.
Seriously, what *IS* it?
I'm not trolling - I'd really like to know.
Er, that's more that 1 trading system. Plus this wasn't a bug in a US equities exchange.
Also, GP was saying a bug in a piece of software only needs to get fixed once, he never said that was before release.
Not if the order or quote makes no sense or somehow isn't valid.
In this case it actually caused ongoing problems with the exchange. Probably caused an overflow in the book handling logic in the matching engine.
Erroneous trades that result from bad behaviour in the exchange software should be rolled back, as they are not the fault of the trading parties.
If we were simply talking about the order being overfilled, then I'd agree with you.
Buying and selling are treated as separate cases on the 20 or so exchanges I have experience with.
The one area where negatives ARE used is in multi-legged instruments such as calendar spreads, but that's in the price not the quantity.
I'd suspect it was triggered by a bug at a trading company with a seat on the exchange.
Some exchange protocols are in binary. The exchange may have validated only one side, assuming qtys would always be positive.
Did it for you: +1 Insightful
Wait... DAMN!
I realized that after I posted... oh well. :)
I think you're thinking of "inconceivable"...
I don't even think insanity should be a valid defense.
Your last sentence is the most astute. It's the reason things haven't gone further already: so much is on the line. Other countries don't believe they can afford to allow the dollar to fail.
What happens? I can't predict. But we CAN get the budget under control without riots.
If only the politicians would have the courage to risk it.
I agree with most if that. Btw I didn't grow up in the US, so I wasnt indoctrinated like my kids are.
I really haven't heard the racism from the left, but I concede that I may just not have heard it.
I really don't know why it's political suicide to fix the budget. I also don't know why we can't cut defense. We could balance the budget easily if the politicians were willing.
What will it take? A downgrade of our treasuries?
Except that I've listened to a lot of right and left wing radio, and I've never heard a left winger use the term towel heads, etc.. I do hear it on the right.
Also, on the right are all the bigoted views... I haven't heard the same kind of crap from the left that I hear from the right all the time... Homophobic. Anti women. Xenophobic. You name it.
And I have many conservative views: particularly financial. I believe in small government, responsible fiscal policy, balancing the budget, free market. Todays GOP is lead by nutjobs. When they've had power they haven't shrunk government (the opposite) nor have they balanced the budget (the last surfeit was under Clinton). I don't know how a true conservative can vote GOP these days.
This is the scenario as RTS sees it:
RTS wrote "A" (a Linux kernel module that can also be compiled to link against another OS)
RTS supplies "A" along with the Linux kernel under the GPL
RTS additionally writes "B" which works with "A".
As to linking, assume B links with A, and A can link with the Linux kernel. Assume that A linked with B is never linked with the Linux kernel.
Also assume that A+B linked are only ever distributed without any GPLed software.
This is my understanding of RTS's position.
If the above is true, no theory under copyright law can prevent RTS from licensing "B" or not at their will.
Neither can it force RTS to release "B" under the GPL.
I don't see any way you can read the terms in the GPL to mean you are agreeing to release "B" under the GPL, since "B" is not a derivative of the kernel (it hasn't been near it), and even if "B" *is* a derivative of "A" (doubtful, except when they are combined), RTS is the sole copyright holder of "A" and has full rights therein.
To give a simplified example: I can release a piece of software under the GPL, then improve it (creating a derivative work), but then keep the improvements to myself and never release them. I don't need to accept the GPL since I own the copyrights.
I don't buy the claim that linking makes any difference.
Assuming, in your example, A and B are object files then linking them will copy both A and B into the result.
That is not the case with a module. When a module is linked against the kernel, it does not copy the kernel into the result (duh).
That's irrelevant anyway.
If A is the kernel and I wrote B, whether or not B may be linked against A is irrelevant: I retain full rights to B.
Even if I release parts of B under a license (such as the GPL), I still retain my copyright to the whole, and may at will release any or all of it under any license I choose.
I don't buy the argument that linking makes any difference.
It's not a creative step - it's done completely automatically by the linker: it's mechanical. Thew cannot be any copyright in anything that comes from such a step. Therefore I claim that linking cannot, in an of itself, result in a derivative work.
And using an API cannot either.
Howevet, IANAL.
Shipping things together makes no difference.
I missed the part about "RTS *is* using GPL code".
Using isn't covered by copyright law.
Copying and distributing are. If you mean RTS are distributing GPL then there are the following cases:
1. They own all the copyrights to the code they are distributing.
2. There is at least some code that they are distributing which they do not own the copyrights to.
If 1 is true, then they are perfectly within the law.
If you are claiming 2, then I hope you have evidence, otherwise such a claim is dangerous. If wrong your comment is defamatory. Plus they may still be ok if they also have an additional license from the other copyright holders.
Not true.
1. Derivative is a legal term defined by copyright law.
2. The 10 lines in question were the only lines aside from API definitions. It's the API portion that is important here, and formed the holdings in the case.
It has never made any sense to me the claim that a piece of code is considered a derivative if the Linux kernel if is uses the API and forms a module. I think Oracle vs Google weakens this claim.
I didn't bring up Oracle vs Google, Larry did. Apparently there was argument that including header files and using the Linux APIs automatically makes software a derivative.
This position is absurd. If that's the whole argument then it's clear cut.
That's my only point.
I know quite a lot about the Oracle vs Google case, and I agree this is quite different.
However, it's not the specifics of the case that are important: it's the HOLDINGs.
Mellon
Even if some code were included, any damages would take into account the proportion of the infringing code to non infringing code. Unless they were egregious, thus wouldn't be terribly much.
There really isn't anything to see here except dirty laundry.
I'm afraid that seems pretty clear cut.
No developer in their right mind would claim that including APIs induces a derived work (LOL Oracle).
It's actually a shame that this took place in public. Whichever way it goes someone looks bad.
There could be defamation or libel claims.
You guys funny