Posts by THUFIR HAWAT

Why would it be fair use? Is it transformative? Is it for academic use? Is it even interoperable?

Re: I wonder if the Supreme Court understood the issue?

Are you really advocating that if *you* develop a unique and new API under the GPL that someone else can re-implement that API and tweak it without paying you a dime? Leaving aside trivial examples, like a sort method.

mothers maiden name

All they need is to access your mothers FB page, and they have it without even asking!

Source is GPL, or ASF?

@Do Not Fold Spindle Mutilate err, you've got the whole thing backwards. Is the original code GPL of ASL? If it's GPL, then why is the Google code under the ASL?

It's ironic that you use the "fail" icon, because you've failed completely in understanding the problem: you can't just take GPL code and slap an ASL on it. If thats what Google did, if, as your statements indicate happened, then the code is really GPL. When you remove the GPL boilerplate bad things happen.

Once you break the conditions of the GPL, you lose patent protection as well. That's, basically, Oracle's argument. You may think you're supporting Google, but your argument *actually* supports Oracle's contention: that the code was copyrighted. All Google had to do was to keep the GPL boilerplate and there wouldn't be a problem.

Which raises the bigger question, of why Google didn't just fork OpenJDK -- much easier. However, any such fork would, naturally, be under the GPL and *not* the ASL.

I think this is just a case of a business (Google) deciding that the ASL is preferable, and then a mix-up. However, the facts, as you present them, make that a really expensive case of copyright infringement (and patent, as well, because when you drop the GPL you lose patent protection).

Penguin for the GPL :)

security? can you say "package manager"?

@Bill Colemen: while, then why don't Apple just use a package manager which updates apps? I mean, that's the logical conclusion to the whole "walled garden" they have. Simply apply the same logic from their portable devices (?iOS?) to regular mac's and be done with it.

By the by, .NET requires updates, just like Java. Should Apple come out with their own VM, to better achieve total lock-in, I'm sure it, too, will require updates.

Huge powerpoint?

"There they will experience bottlenecks in accessing their huge PowerPoints, 4GB emails and have a few system outages inconveniencing the CEO."

err, have you used Google Doc's? That 4GB e-mail isn't a problem since it's, well, in the cloud. Kinda the point.

In and of itself, that's enough that everyone in the world should switch over to some sorta cloud (intranet?) for company doc's! That being said, restricting the interface to what a browser can do is silly.

pros:

1.) no 4GB e-mails getting passed around

2.) no "oops, lost the file"/crash/whatever from users

3.) platform independent! (well, Firefox compatible, let's say)

4.) similar to #1, no virus attachments

wrong e-mail

errr, if it's linked to the wrong account then, err, PEBKAC?

open source VoIP

but how would you make a call to a PSTN? The client is, or will be, open sourced -- but that's just the GUI. At the end of the day, someone has to pay for those telephone calls, so, no, skype can't just open source the whole thing and remain a business.

Harmony isn't ©Java

If I understand, because it's not certified, Harmony can't claim to be ©Java. But, what stops it from claiming to be Harmony? Oracle bought the copyright to the name ©Java, and owns the TCK, so can do what they like with the name ©Java and the TCK(?). Where and how does Apache go about telling Oracle the terms and conditions for Oracle software? Strange concept.

OTOH, If there's something you don't like about ©Java, great, fork OpenJDK -- oops, you'll have to use that dreaded (L)GPL. This is really about Apache not wanting to use the LGPL, nothing more.

To reiterate, Java is already open source. What's the problem?

virus, etc

Which might be the point of this OS -- it has better security than Windows. On that point alone, think of the saved time, money and aggravation. On the flip side, think of all those who would be put out of work supporting the OS, which Google seems to have a strange take on. Under this concept, the unemployment in the US would worsen, and it's not like there are other jobs for those displaced, what with globalization.

In that sense, this *idea*, if perhaps not the implementation, is disruptive, which is good (overall). I see it as another step towards the commoditization of the OS. Nothing wrong with that.

javascript -- why didn't SUN sue?

seriously, that's kinda basic brand protection. Did Sun somehow figure it would be advantageous?

IE6

I infer that this is a reference to IE6 and why sysadmins don't install it, but that's just guesswork.

But...

Code under the GPL is protected from patent. If you remove the license, it's not just open to copyright infringment, but now that patent protection is lost. Possibly that's the logic?

why fork Java?

what is there to fork? OpenJDK is already under the GPL.

I mean, I guess you could fork it, but why? Which part of OpenJDK do you object to?

The point has been made before that all Google had to do was to fork OpenJDK and the resultant fork would've been fine for Android -- not sure why they didn't just do that. However, for Java SE, why fork at all?

If Android were derived from OpenJDK, it would also have to be GPL...

That's the argument, that it *was* derived from OpenJDK. If true, that would be bombshell. With copyright infringement, isn't it per instance of violation? Continuing the what-if, that would be a huge settlement.

OTOH, the class was written from scratch, and *not* copy/paste/whatever from the GPL code, then it's fine if they happen to do the same thing the same way (?). IANAL -- but, for the sake of argument, I'll act like one ;)

All Google has to show, so far as I'm aware, would be the svn/git/etc logs showing how this class evolved. Presumably it's not just this one class? Kinda absurd to violate the GPL over one class file.

In this scenario, Microsoft and Apple would be primary beneficiary, as Google's existence benefits Oracle. It's turning into a regular soap opera :)

corporate market

Are you using Skype on Windows, or Skype for SIP, or what? I would assume that a business would use SIP, or Skype for SIP. If you're just running Skype, then, yeah, I can kinda see that.

Easier, cheaper way

To take this to its logical extreme, if the cars drive themselves, then performance from one car to another wouldn't matter, right? From a consumers standpoint, then performance becomes a non-issue. As would safety.

If that leads to the demise of the Hummer type car culture, then great, and it *would* actually result in lower emissions.

In a democracy it's kinda hard to get people to do what's collectively good if it goes against individual desires.

OpenJDK is GPL

Yes, I agree, why not simply fork OpenJDK or HotSpot -- both are GPL. That would've avoided this whole mess.

Yeah, the truth, right

Exactly, AC, that's the problem -- the right wing distorts more than the left; absolutely, it's unequal.

If not Java, then what?

At least on Linux, there's no C# option. This leave C++ and scripting languages, no?

consumer protection

Err, no:

If an item scans higher at checkout than the sticker price on the item itself or the price posted on the shelf, in Connecticut, you’re entitled to that item at no cost. You don’t pay the higher price OR the lower price. In fact, the store must give the item to you free, up to a value of $20.

http://www.ct.gov/dcp/cwp/view.asp?a=1629&q=454534

At non-grocery type stores you can insist upon the marked price so long as its reasonable. Ie, you can't buy a car for $20, but I have purchased a mp3 players for a fraction of the cost as scanned in based upon mismarking ($60 versus $20, IIRC).

I cannot believe that within the EU, including GB, that the consumer protection would be less than above. I flat out reject your contention that a shop can just decline a transaction. What about a "no irish or dogs" type sign? Get real.