There's this odd foreshortening of perspective in some geeks where they seem to get terribly emotionally involved in whether or not somebody else likes something that they don't.
I think that's pretty much human nature. People are the same way about cars or whatnot, and music too, even if you yourself are above it. Being a geek is somewhat trendy these days, but how many people over the years got shit for being into computers?
Heres a local news story about the comparisons.... and the iPad won out by a huge margin. It was cheaper, better, "cooler" (by FAR), had more functionality via Apps... students would actually WANT to use it, to show their parents what they were working on, to use the device with their friends.
The new story you link to says none of the above. All it says is they were testing out multiple devices, and the iPads were for "year 7" students.
The iPad is a great browsing device, especially for on the go. As a machine to do actual work on? A touch device doesn't cut it and does NOT replace a desktop.
As for coolness factor, yeah, the iPad wins. However, I hope school officials aren't blowing taxpayer money on devices just because they are cool.
They're seeing Mac sales go up while PC sales go down because of iPad.
I seriously doubt iPad sales are driving down PC sales. The iPad is a luxury tech gadget that does not replace the commodity function of the desktop PC.
But your claim is that since those blobs are dependent upon the kernel and useless without it they must be subject to the GPL.
Only if they are distributed with GPL code. In many distros you have to download them yourself to avoid license concerns. Copyright case law, at least in the US, says that functional interfaces are not copyrightable, so I think what nVidia does it perfectly legal. Now if some company decides to ship nVidia's binary blob as part their GPL-based distro, then there's a problem.
At least that's the claim you are making for Android.
The problem for Android phone makers is that they are shipping a whole work based, in part, on GPL code. It's a fundamental tenant in the GPL that you can't do that unless the GPL is applied to all parts.
So even if you are right and merely running a program on the kernel makes is subject to the GPL
I never claimed this. It's all about distribution of GPL code with non-GPL code.
Linus does get to define what the GPL means for the areas he and his mates hold copyright over.
My main point is what the GPL as a legal document means. It's quite obvious that anybody with a significant copyright in the Linux kernel has had ample opportunity to voice complaint by now, and have not done so.
At best your words here are part of the background noise on the internet.
I never had any pretensions otherwise. I'm stating my opinion on Slashdot, just like you and everybody else here.
Either you are confused or just being confusing. The "same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program" are talking about code in a resulting binary.
The confusion is on your end, because you are making up rules that are not defined in the license. Feel free to quote the license to demonstrate otherwise. In the meantime, here's contra-evidence: "the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program"
The absurd claim being made is that somehow you have the legal standing to interpret whether Android is a derivative work under the GPL.
I agree, and that's why I never said I had legal standing. This is a discussion site where users comment on all sorts of things in which they have no legal standing. Whether a particular GPL developer feels that have been infringed or not, however, doesn't decide if the GPL was infringed.
The primary author, Linus Torvalds,
Linus hasn't been the primary author for many years -- these days he just accepts patches, and mainly just accepts ones from his trusted lieutenants. The Linus kernel contains millions of lines of code, and he doesn't require copyright assignment, so his legal standing is greatly diminished from the early days.
Feel free to send him an email and tell him he has to sue TiVo, and Cisco, and Google, and D-link, and AMD, and nVidia and most other audio and video device makers. I'm sure he'll appreciate your opinion.
Actually, you won't find non-GPL code from companies like nVidia in the kernel. They provide a GPLed interface that they then write proprietary blobs to. In the past few years, even firmware has been moved out of the kernel:
Yes, you are claiming that one of the fundamental GPL terms is not valid. There's no more reason to believe it isn't than it is. There have, in fact, been plenty of lawsuits regarding the GPL, and the vast majority of those sued have settled by the defendants agreeing to abide by the GPL along with monetary compensation.
Licenses can have terms in them that aren't enforceable by law. Just because a license says something doesn't make it binding.
Of course, but then you have to make a case as to why a term is invalid. By default license terms are valid.
That one component is GPL doesn't mean everything is. There is nothing in the GPLv2 that says this.
Seriously, that's the GPL's main claim to fame. It's the viral nature. It's explicitly stated that: "But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
But that is some completely separate scenario than what we are talking about. The more relevant analogous scenario would be claiming that using a licensed version of the Windows kernel means that all software has to be under the same license that the kernel is. This is absurd and would be struck down in court.
It's completely relevant. The only valid way to distribute the Microsoft kernel would be if they licensed it to you. No license, no distribution. Now you are making the absurd claim that the GPL can't set the conditions for it's license. Software licenses routinely dictate how the the program they are distributed with may be sub-licensed.
And you have case law and the relevant statutory law to back this up right?
Do you have the case law to say it isn't? Sometimes you need to be a lawyer, and sometimes you just need to read the damn license and use common sense.
The only way that all of Android would have to be GPLed is if all the rest of Android is considered a derivative work. And despite the fact that the FSF would like everyone to believe in their extremely broad definition of what makes something derivative there is no clear standard.
It doesn't matter what you consider a derivative work when there is no dispute that a component being distributed is under the GPL. The only thing that matters is what's stated in the license, because that's the only legal reason you have to distribute a copyrighted work. If you replaced the GPL kernel with an unlicensed Microsoft Windows kernel, nobody would claim that Microsoft didn't have legal grounds to sue.
And no, the kernel is not a fundamental piece of the whole as long as it isn't directly linked into the resulting binary.
Without the kernel an Android device doesn't function. How bizarre of you to say it isn't fundamental.
If what you were saying was true then linux distros such as Red Hat would not be legally possible, let alone SuSE. Otherwise how do you think they manage to legally include all those closed-source drivers?
I have no idea what drivers Red Hat distributes, but just because somebody violates the GPL and gets away with it doesn't make it legal. It's up to people who own the copyright to press the case.
What about running a closed-source Adobe reader on that kernel? Does the reader now need to be open?
Only if you ship the reader as part of the distribution. Any user can download a closed reader and legally run it on their GPL kernel.
And excuse me but I've damn near memorized the GPL.
Then it's hard to understand how you missed the parts talking about how the whole work must be GPLed when parts of it are GPLed.
Actually, it's not hard at all. Like so many others, you latched onto the one out clause, "mere aggregation", and then ignored the rest that explicitly talks about GPL works being distributed as part of a whole.
I didn't say infinitely, I said indefinitely, which I mean as for the foreseeable future. There are all kinds of reasons why we won't, but inability isn't one of them.
It's not "mere aggregation" when the component is a fundamental piece of the whole.
I don't care what Linus says, even if he said what you are claiming. He's not the only copyright holder on the kernel, and he doesn't define what the GPL means. The license text of GPLv2 is quite clear on the matter.
Android uses the Linux kernel, nothing more that is GPLed.
If they use a GPLed kernel, then the whole distribution must be GPL. That's the nature of GPL. You can't pick and choose what piece are GPL and what aren't.
This is a terrible apology for Newton's theory of gravity. Einstein's relativity isn't an "add on" module. It completely subsumes Newton's theory, and shows that is just a very good approximation at ordinary scales.
This in no way diminishes Newton's accomplishment, or even usefulness. However, we can say that his theory of gravity has been falsified.
If you look at actual American casualties in any "Islam" war, either Iraq or Afghanistan, they are extremely small compared to wars like WW2. If we wanted to, we could occupy either country indefinitely.
Miss the point? You are trying to equate involuntary violence upon another person with voluntary acceptance of goods. We outlaw the first for good reason. In other words, you provided a bad analogy.
But that's just a bunch of propaganda, 1984 Newspeak style. Adopt the word "freedom" where it actually means "restrictions". What compels a free man to not copy? What compels a free man to give away source code? Surely it isn't freedom.
How hard would you have to push? Well, in the US and Western Europe today the population growth is negative. Many people feel that it isn't fair to bring children into a world of declining expectations and looming destruction of the environment.
I'd guess it's more likely educated people don't want to be burdened with a bunch of kids while trying to get ahead in the workplace.
Actually, that also makes sense with the general move to 16:9 monitors (which is also annoying, but using the same size panels as HD TV is clearly going to be an economic end-of-argument).
Besides HDTV, there's also the benefit of side-by-side windows. A single widescreen is so much nicer than futzing around with dual monitors (the trend that I never got into).
Slashdot Mirror
There's this odd foreshortening of perspective in some geeks where they seem to get terribly emotionally involved in whether or not somebody else likes something that they don't.
I think that's pretty much human nature. People are the same way about cars or whatnot, and music too, even if you yourself are above it. Being a geek is somewhat trendy these days, but how many people over the years got shit for being into computers?
Heres a local news story about the comparisons.... and the iPad won out by a huge margin. It was cheaper, better, "cooler" (by FAR), had more functionality via Apps... students would actually WANT to use it, to show their parents what they were working on, to use the device with their friends.
The new story you link to says none of the above. All it says is they were testing out multiple devices, and the iPads were for "year 7" students.
The iPad is a great browsing device, especially for on the go. As a machine to do actual work on? A touch device doesn't cut it and does NOT replace a desktop.
As for coolness factor, yeah, the iPad wins. However, I hope school officials aren't blowing taxpayer money on devices just because they are cool.
I am a Linux fan and support FOSS
So did you watch the lectures from Linux? Are you happy the lectures are being used to promote a Windows view of the Web?
Feynman's awesome, but when his awesomeness is being used to promote proprietary formats that takes center stage.
They're seeing Mac sales go up while PC sales go down because of iPad.
I seriously doubt iPad sales are driving down PC sales. The iPad is a luxury tech gadget that does not replace the commodity function of the desktop PC.
But your claim is that since those blobs are dependent upon the kernel and useless without it they must be subject to the GPL.
Only if they are distributed with GPL code. In many distros you have to download them yourself to avoid license concerns. Copyright case law, at least in the US, says that functional interfaces are not copyrightable, so I think what nVidia does it perfectly legal. Now if some company decides to ship nVidia's binary blob as part their GPL-based distro, then there's a problem.
At least that's the claim you are making for Android.
The problem for Android phone makers is that they are shipping a whole work based, in part, on GPL code. It's a fundamental tenant in the GPL that you can't do that unless the GPL is applied to all parts.
All should have similar stand
Fuck off. I'm not supporting a patented standard that requires royalties.
You can just ignore my argument, but it doesn't mean it's wrong. It's a bad analogy.
So even if you are right and merely running a program on the kernel makes is subject to the GPL
I never claimed this. It's all about distribution of GPL code with non-GPL code.
Linus does get to define what the GPL means for the areas he and his mates hold copyright over.
My main point is what the GPL as a legal document means. It's quite obvious that anybody with a significant copyright in the Linux kernel has had ample opportunity to voice complaint by now, and have not done so.
At best your words here are part of the background noise on the internet.
I never had any pretensions otherwise. I'm stating my opinion on Slashdot, just like you and everybody else here.
Either you are confused or just being confusing. The "same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program" are talking about code in a resulting binary.
The confusion is on your end, because you are making up rules that are not defined in the license. Feel free to quote the license to demonstrate otherwise. In the meantime, here's contra-evidence: "the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program"
The absurd claim being made is that somehow you have the legal standing to interpret whether Android is a derivative work under the GPL.
I agree, and that's why I never said I had legal standing. This is a discussion site where users comment on all sorts of things in which they have no legal standing. Whether a particular GPL developer feels that have been infringed or not, however, doesn't decide if the GPL was infringed.
The primary author, Linus Torvalds,
Linus hasn't been the primary author for many years -- these days he just accepts patches, and mainly just accepts ones from his trusted lieutenants. The Linus kernel contains millions of lines of code, and he doesn't require copyright assignment, so his legal standing is greatly diminished from the early days.
Feel free to send him an email and tell him he has to sue TiVo, and Cisco, and Google, and D-link, and AMD, and nVidia and most other audio and video device makers. I'm sure he'll appreciate your opinion.
Actually, you won't find non-GPL code from companies like nVidia in the kernel. They provide a GPLed interface that they then write proprietary blobs to. In the past few years, even firmware has been moved out of the kernel:
Moving the firmware out
Cisco and D-link have both been sued for violation of the GPL.
Because I was the one making the claim, right?
Yes, you are claiming that one of the fundamental GPL terms is not valid. There's no more reason to believe it isn't than it is. There have, in fact, been plenty of lawsuits regarding the GPL, and the vast majority of those sued have settled by the defendants agreeing to abide by the GPL along with monetary compensation.
Licenses can have terms in them that aren't enforceable by law. Just because a license says something doesn't make it binding.
Of course, but then you have to make a case as to why a term is invalid. By default license terms are valid.
That one component is GPL doesn't mean everything is. There is nothing in the GPLv2 that says this.
Seriously, that's the GPL's main claim to fame. It's the viral nature. It's explicitly stated that: "But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it."
But that is some completely separate scenario than what we are talking about. The more relevant analogous scenario would be claiming that using a licensed version of the Windows kernel means that all software has to be under the same license that the kernel is. This is absurd and would be struck down in court.
It's completely relevant. The only valid way to distribute the Microsoft kernel would be if they licensed it to you. No license, no distribution. Now you are making the absurd claim that the GPL can't set the conditions for it's license. Software licenses routinely dictate how the the program they are distributed with may be sub-licensed.
And you have case law and the relevant statutory law to back this up right?
Do you have the case law to say it isn't? Sometimes you need to be a lawyer, and sometimes you just need to read the damn license and use common sense.
The only way that all of Android would have to be GPLed is if all the rest of Android is considered a derivative work. And despite the fact that the FSF would like everyone to believe in their extremely broad definition of what makes something derivative there is no clear standard.
It doesn't matter what you consider a derivative work when there is no dispute that a component being distributed is under the GPL. The only thing that matters is what's stated in the license, because that's the only legal reason you have to distribute a copyrighted work. If you replaced the GPL kernel with an unlicensed Microsoft Windows kernel, nobody would claim that Microsoft didn't have legal grounds to sue.
And no, the kernel is not a fundamental piece of the whole as long as it isn't directly linked into the resulting binary.
Without the kernel an Android device doesn't function. How bizarre of you to say it isn't fundamental.
If what you were saying was true then linux distros such as Red Hat would not be legally possible, let alone SuSE. Otherwise how do you think they manage to legally include all those closed-source drivers?
I have no idea what drivers Red Hat distributes, but just because somebody violates the GPL and gets away with it doesn't make it legal. It's up to people who own the copyright to press the case.
What about running a closed-source Adobe reader on that kernel? Does the reader now need to be open?
Only if you ship the reader as part of the distribution. Any user can download a closed reader and legally run it on their GPL kernel.
And excuse me but I've damn near memorized the GPL.
Then it's hard to understand how you missed the parts talking about how the whole work must be GPLed when parts of it are GPLed.
Actually, it's not hard at all. Like so many others, you latched onto the one out clause, "mere aggregation", and then ignored the rest that explicitly talks about GPL works being distributed as part of a whole.
I didn't say infinitely, I said indefinitely, which I mean as for the foreseeable future. There are all kinds of reasons why we won't, but inability isn't one of them.
It's not "mere aggregation" when the component is a fundamental piece of the whole.
I don't care what Linus says, even if he said what you are claiming. He's not the only copyright holder on the kernel, and he doesn't define what the GPL means. The license text of GPLv2 is quite clear on the matter.
Android uses the Linux kernel, nothing more that is GPLed.
If they use a GPLed kernel, then the whole distribution must be GPL. That's the nature of GPL. You can't pick and choose what piece are GPL and what aren't.
This is a terrible apology for Newton's theory of gravity. Einstein's relativity isn't an "add on" module. It completely subsumes Newton's theory, and shows that is just a very good approximation at ordinary scales.
This in no way diminishes Newton's accomplishment, or even usefulness. However, we can say that his theory of gravity has been falsified.
Firstly it's GP's analogy, not mine.
My mistake. However, here you are defending it.
Secondly it's just an example
A terribly bad one for you to argue. Killing somebody is direct harm, and that is why we don't allow it.
Distributing binaries without source is voluntary on the part of distributor but non-receipt of source is involuntary on the part of the recipient.
What bizarre world do you live in?
"Here's a binary, but I won't provide the source."
"OK, I'll take it anyways."
If you look at actual American casualties in any "Islam" war, either Iraq or Afghanistan, they are extremely small compared to wars like WW2. If we wanted to, we could occupy either country indefinitely.
Design patent
Miss the point? You are trying to equate involuntary violence upon another person with voluntary acceptance of goods. We outlaw the first for good reason. In other words, you provided a bad analogy.
It's free as in freedom *for the end users*
But that's just a bunch of propaganda, 1984 Newspeak style. Adopt the word "freedom" where it actually means "restrictions". What compels a free man to not copy? What compels a free man to give away source code? Surely it isn't freedom.
Hyperbole aside, they are in fact the same principle.
No, actually they're completely different. One is committing violence, while the other involves a voluntary acceptance of goods.
How hard would you have to push? Well, in the US and Western Europe today the population growth is negative. Many people feel that it isn't fair to bring children into a world of declining expectations and looming destruction of the environment.
I'd guess it's more likely educated people don't want to be burdened with a bunch of kids while trying to get ahead in the workplace.
Actually, that also makes sense with the general move to 16:9 monitors (which is also annoying, but using the same size panels as HD TV is clearly going to be an economic end-of-argument).
Besides HDTV, there's also the benefit of side-by-side windows. A single widescreen is so much nicer than futzing around with dual monitors (the trend that I never got into).