Register Guidelines E-Books Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   MobileRead Forums > E-Book General > News

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 08-15-2011, 10:19 PM   #91
stonetools
Wizard
stonetools ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.stonetools ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.stonetools ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.stonetools ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.stonetools ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.stonetools ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.stonetools ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.stonetools ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.stonetools ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.stonetools ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.stonetools ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
stonetools's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,016
Karma: 2838487
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Device: Ipad, IPhone
Quote:
Maybe it's my age, but I don't know anyone who just does email and internet on their home computers. Not even my grandparents.
You have unusual friends and grandparents, you really do. MY mother can't even turn on the computer we bought for her, and she is ia lot closer to the average senior than your grandparents.
stonetools is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2011, 10:46 PM   #92
kjk
.
kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,408
Karma: 5647231
Join Date: Oct 2008
Device: never enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieBird View Post
Maybe it's my age, but I don't know anyone who just does email and internet on their home computers. Not even my grandparents.

My artistic friends create movies, either professionally or for YouTube. Others do serious photography. Neither of which can run well on even a laptop. You need big screens and lots of power for real work in these fields. Even my 93 year old grandfather uses Photoshop.
Well, laptops have outsold desktops since around 2003. Your friends and grandfather are not "most" of computer users if they are doing things that can't be done on laptops.

Quote:
I know, myself, I have 3 different CAD programs on my computer, not to mention several programming languages. I'm not alone in this.
You may not be alone in that, but surely you don't think that is anywhere NEAR the norm for anything approaching "most".
kjk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2011, 08:24 AM   #93
Sil_liS
Wizard
Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 4,682
Karma: 33379200
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: PocketBook 903 & 360+
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieBird View Post
I think it's really silly to assume 'most' people don't do power intensive things on their computers.
I agree. The ipad 2 has a dual core 1GHz processor. Nobody would buy a laptop with i7 processors if that is all that was needed.
Sil_liS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2011, 09:32 AM   #94
murraypaul
Interested Bystander
murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,224
Karma: 10210627
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Sony PRS505, Nook Color(CM7), iPad3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck View Post
Technically, the copyright owners could've sued Apple instead of requesting removal--Apple was selling & distributing works for which it did not have copyright. OS advocates being willing to settle for "remove it" instead of "get sued for up to $150,000 for every copy you've illegally sold or given away" is the polite reaction on the part of the copyright holders.

Apple was in violation of copyright by offering to sell those apps in the first place.
Talking of copyright violations, I just read this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/15/android_gpl/
Quote:
According to Naughton, when building Android's Bionic library – which provides application developers with access to Android's underlying Linux kernel – Google stretched the boundaries of copyright law by making use of the Linux header files open sourced under the GNU Public License (GPLv2), which has a strong copyleft provision. Google stripped programmer commentary and other information from the files, arguing that these "cleaned" files are no longer subject to copyright. Then, as part of Android, it open sourced the files under a license with no copyleft provision.
Can you imagine the outrage if Microsoft or Apple had done something similar?
murraypaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2011, 10:09 AM   #95
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: 883
Karma: 4235574
Join Date: Nov 2007
Device: Hanlin v3, iPad, Kindle 4NT
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul View Post
Talking of copyright violations, I just read this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/15/android_gpl/


Can you imagine the outrage if Microsoft or Apple had done something similar?
http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/03/18/bionic-debate.html

A rebuttal from March this year. Check the resume if you don't know whether to believe the arguments.
JoeD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2011, 10:16 AM   #96
murraypaul
Interested Bystander
murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,224
Karma: 10210627
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Sony PRS505, Nook Color(CM7), iPad3
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeD View Post
http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2011/03/18/bionic-debate.html

A rebuttal from March this year. Check the resume if you don't know whether to believe the arguments.
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.

GPL v2 section 2.b:You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

A scrubbed header is surely a derived work of the original? And the original header is a part of the Program.

And again, my point was not whether this does or doesn't violate the GPL, it was that if Apple had done it rather than Google, it would not have been handled the same way.

From the article: "Thus, I'd guess that even if it turned out that Google made some mistakes in this regard for Bionic, we'd all work together to rectify those mistakes so that the outcome everyone intended could occur."

I don't think the same attitude would be taken were it not Google.

(Edit: List of Android tablets with whether they are GPL compliant or not (excluding this issue): http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59/android_tablets/)

Last edited by murraypaul; 08-16-2011 at 10:41 AM.
murraypaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2011, 11:54 AM   #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: 883
Karma: 4235574
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
Old 08-16-2011, 11:59 AM   #98
murraypaul
Interested Bystander
murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,224
Karma: 10210627
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Sony PRS505, Nook Color(CM7), iPad3
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeD View Post
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.
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
murraypaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2011, 12:11 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: 883
Karma: 4235574
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 12:19 PM.
JoeD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2011, 05:32 AM   #100
murraypaul
Interested Bystander
murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,224
Karma: 10210627
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Sony PRS505, Nook Color(CM7), iPad3
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeD View Post
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).
It is not at all clear whether this is actually a GPLv2 violation though. You can distribute the binary as much as you want, just take the ipk file from your iTunes folder and pass it around. People won't be able to actually use it, but that isn't guaranteed by GPLv2. GPLv2 says nothing about being able to install or actually use the program, just the right to distribute it. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization).

This loophole was addressed by GPLv3, and I think it is pretty clear that GPLv3 applications could not be distributed through iTunes, but it is not obvious that the same applies to GPLv2.

(GPLv2 explictly says "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." GPLv3 says "This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.")

Quote:
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.
Pretty much how I feel about this too.
murraypaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2011, 07:17 AM   #101
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: 883
Karma: 4235574
Join Date: Nov 2007
Device: Hanlin v3, iPad, Kindle 4NT
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul View Post
(GPLv2 explictly says "Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope." GPLv3 says "This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program.")
I'm hesitant to get into the discussion over specifics on this as I've not studied the GPL in detail but I was under the impression that the GPL3 clause was added to ensure users could run the application on that hardware which is a different issue to VLC's distribution.

Whilst it would also be an issue with GPL'd apps on the App store (especially in a spirit of the license sense), it as you say may not have been a violation by the letter of the license. Users could freely copy and modify the app even though signing prevented them from subsequently running it. GPL 3 clause was added to resolve that.

However, that in itself wouldn't have prevented the distribution of GPL'd software on the App store, it would just side step the spirit of the GPL. If that were the only issue, VLC and other GPL'd apps would be fine from a distribution point of view. What I think caused problems with GPL2 licensed software however, such as VLC, is Apple's addition of extra license restrictions at the time of distribution which is prohibited by the GPL.

However, as said, I've not studied the GPL versions in much detail, so take the above with a pinch of salt. I could be talking rubbish
JoeD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2011, 07:55 AM   #102
Dan de V
Avid Reader
Dan de V can tell if an avocado is ripe without touching it.Dan de V can tell if an avocado is ripe without touching it.Dan de V can tell if an avocado is ripe without touching it.Dan de V can tell if an avocado is ripe without touching it.Dan de V can tell if an avocado is ripe without touching it.Dan de V can tell if an avocado is ripe without touching it.Dan de V can tell if an avocado is ripe without touching it.Dan de V can tell if an avocado is ripe without touching it.Dan de V can tell if an avocado is ripe without touching it.Dan de V can tell if an avocado is ripe without touching it.Dan de V can tell if an avocado is ripe without touching it.
 
Dan de V's Avatar
 
Posts: 17
Karma: 130530
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Cairo
Device: PRS 350 & HTC Legend
I have to laugh at how far off topic this thread has got )
Dan de V is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How can I move the library to another drive jeffla376 Library Management 5 06-30-2011 09:03 AM
Not All Publishers Pyched About Apple's Agency Model thinkpad News 9 02-11-2010 12:26 PM
Publishers talk about Apple's tablet Sonist News 52 01-26-2010 03:28 PM
Publishers Must Change the Way Authors Get Paid Moejoe News 0 08-28-2009 05:26 PM
Mike Shatzkin: What Publishers Can Do to Flourish in a Community-Centric Web anurag News 0 06-12-2009 09:27 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:56 AM.


MobileRead.com is a privately owned, operated and funded community.