View Single Post
Old 08-16-2011, 12:54 PM   #97
JoeD
Guru
JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.JoeD ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 889
Karma: 4383958
Join Date: Nov 2007
Device: Hanlin v3, iPad, Kindle 4NT
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul View Post
Who says: "In short, the question is: Does Bionic (the Android/Linux default C library developed by Google) violate the GPL by importing “scrubbed” headers from Linux? For those of you seeking TL;DR version: You can stop now if you expect me to answer this question; I'm not going to."

Hardly a ringing endorsement.
That was the point. The original paper had not done the necessary work to show that google were violating the GPL, yet the way it was been reported didn't quite highlight that beyond a cursory mention.

Perhaps it's just the "media" latching onto it and not reporting the full picture, but that's why I thought that post was worth reading. It's as close as an argument against google infringing as you can possible get without doing the analysis to prove one way or the other.

In addition, the closing part

Quote:
Google may have erred; no one actually knows for sure at this time. But the task they sought to do has been done before and everyone intended it to be permitted.
Sure it says Google may have erred, but there's no way he could say Google are in the right or wrong conclusively without doing the previously mentioned research, so that's a given. However, he does say that the task has been done has been done before without issue.

Quote:
and the implications of the whole thing wouldn't go beyond: “It's possible to write your own C library for Linux that isn't covered by the GPLv2” — a fact which we've all known for a decade and a half anyway.
Now you may very well be right that had it been Apple or MS the way it is reported in the media may have been different. Both have their fair share of haters who will take any opportunity to bash regardless of the facts (which in this care there are yet any to be established). However, I feel that even if it had been Apple or Google, those who were relevant to the case (i.e the copyright holders) would have worked with them to have the matters resolved.

Which sadly is something I don't believe would happen had it been hardware manufacturers in violation. Too many of those don't really care and will do all they can to delay or release in-appropriate source.
JoeD is offline   Reply With Quote