View Single Post
Old 08-16-2011, 01:11 PM   #99
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
I agree.
I also think that in the VLC case, the necessary work hasn't been done to show that Apple were violating the GPL, yet the way ... etcetera.
But strangely the reactions came down on different sides of the fence
In the VLC case the copyright holder informed Apple of the violation and apple took the app down. Also, VLC was a different issue with the GPL, it was clearly using GPL'd code as the app was built from the GPL'd source but that wasn't the reason for the take-down request as the source was available, it was the adding of "extra restrictions" to the license, i.e Apple preventing installation on more than 5 devices (afaik).

In regards to whether header files count as derivatives, there's a post here that addresses it to an extent. Whether that has bearing on Googles case, I'm not a lawyer so have no idea. But this is straight from the horses mouth so to speak.

http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/li...01.1/0362.html

Please don't think I'm trying to pick a fight over this. In fact I'm not sure where I sit on the topic, other than I dislike the way the media have initially reported this.

Last edited by JoeD; 08-16-2011 at 01:19 PM.
JoeD is offline   Reply With Quote