FlorianMueller

10 ms·

91.
by FlorianMueller 16y ago
I have listed the patents in my blog post on this: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/03/microsoft-sues-barne... 1 of them was previously also asserted against Motorola. 4 of them weren't. Since Microsoft already has 23 patents in suit
92.
by FlorianMueller 16y ago
Brad Kuhn has an interesting take on modifying large codebases: "If someone actually does all the research to prove that Google did, I'd easily offer a 1,000-to-1 bet to anyone that such a copyright infringement could be cleared up easily [
93.
by FlorianMueller 16y ago
Brad Kuhn writes: "But, to deny that it's possible to rewrite a C library for Linux under a license that isn't GPLv2 would also imply immediately the (incorrect) conclusion that [...]" This is pointless and may mislead some readers. Without
94.
by FlorianMueller 16y ago
Brad Kuhn says: "Google wasn't seeking to circumvent the GPL at all." That's wrong. Not only did Google throw out numerous GPL notices from the original headers, but it explicitly stated in the context of Bionic its goal to "keep [the] GPL
95.
by FlorianMueller 16y ago
Does any of those libraries gut the original Linux kernel headers the way Bionic does? Not as far as I can see. You can build libraries if you like, but you can't just put header code under a different license unless you're the original rig
96.
by FlorianMueller 16y ago
glibc contains Linux kernel header code that the maintainers of the Linux kernel add to it. They can do so because contributors to Linux know that this happens and accept it. But third parties can't just take such code and put it under othe
97.
by FlorianMueller 16y ago
@Sandman, the "oh my, oh my, oh my" part is actually justified as a reaction to some of what you say. Of course you can try to charge for GPL'd software. But since the GPL requires you to make it available free of charge, there would be arb
98.
by FlorianMueller 16y ago
Pretty much. They also threw out a few other elements, but I looked at some of the original header files and the Android equivalents and it was hard to find any difference other than the removal of comments.
99.
by FlorianMueller 16y ago
Edward Naughton, a prominent IP litigator, said in his Huffington Post article on this that he's skeptical of Google's approach because he believes the header material they copied is likely copyrightable. If it's copyrightable, it can't jus
100.
by FlorianMueller 16y ago
glibc is LGPL'd because the kernel maintainers create it under the LGPL and all Linux kernel contributors know and accept that. But third parties can't just take code and relicense it. Otherwise why not take all of Linux and relicense it un
101.
by FlorianMueller 16y ago
The reason is that Angry Birds is written in C and certainly accesses the Linux kernel, almost certainly using the Bionic library. If that one is GPL'd, Angry Birds has to be GPL'd. GPL copyleft affects derivative works, and compiling a lib
102.
by FlorianMueller 16y ago
Linus Torvalds says that "normal system calls" are allowed, but once you use the original kernel headers, you're subject to the GPL: http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/5/13 The way to avoid this is to use glibc.
103.
by FlorianMueller 16y ago
Thanks for clarifying that. Yes, let freedom and pluralism ring.
104.
by FlorianMueller 16y ago
I agree that linking to GPL libraries has GPL implications. Concerning a relicensing of Bionic under the LGPL, it's important to consider that only the original copyright holders can simply relicense (like MySQL, which granted non-GPL licen
105.
by FlorianMueller 16y ago
That Groklaw article failed to explain that the code in question is indeed distributed online by major Android device makers such as Motorola, Samsung and LG: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/android-device-maker...
106.
Google's Android faces a serious Linux copyright issue(fosspatents.blogspot.com)
58 points by FlorianMueller 16y ago|81 comments
107.
Red Hat feeds the patent trolls: secret $4.2 million payment uncovered(fosspatents.blogspot.com)
2 points by FlorianMueller 16y ago|0 comments
108.
Dutch court lifts PlayStation seizure order: LG must return 300,000 PS3s to Sony(fosspatents.blogspot.com)
1 points by FlorianMueller 16y ago|0 comments
109.
PlayStation 3 seizures: showdown tomorrow between LG and Sony in a Dutch court(fosspatents.blogspot.com)
1 points by FlorianMueller 16y ago|0 comments
110.
Motorola says Android phones increasingly compete with consoles like Xbox(fosspatents.blogspot.com)
3 points by FlorianMueller 16y ago|0 comments
111.
ITC votes to investigate PlayStation 3 further to LG complaint(fosspatents.blogspot.com)
3 points by FlorianMueller 16y ago|1 comments
112.
Microsoft and Google jointly sue a patent troll who has sued 397 companies(fosspatents.blogspot.com)
275 points by FlorianMueller 16y ago|67 comments
113.
How Sony can still ship playstations into Europe despite LG's latest move(fosspatents.blogspot.com)
1 points by FlorianMueller 16y ago|0 comments
114.
Motorola Xoom tablet hit with trademark lawsuit right before today's launch(fosspatents.blogspot.com)
1 points by FlorianMueller 16y ago|0 comments
115.
Oracle says Google derived code from specs for hundreds of Java files(fosspatents.blogspot.com)
3 points by FlorianMueller 16y ago|0 comments
116.
by FlorianMueller 16y ago
Even a melody is protected by copyright law if it's longer than X tones (X depends on the jurisdiction).
117.
by FlorianMueller 16y ago
That's a run-of-the-mill attempt to deny copying. However, if you look at the synopsis documents I produced (with a decompiled version of Oracle's code on the left side and the code found in the Android codebase on the right side), you can
118.
by FlorianMueller 16y ago
Oracle presented 12 files to the court. I would consider a source code file to a song. Just look at the files I presented here: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-evidence-support... I have updated the blog post on reexamination
119.
Google asks patent office to reexamine four Oracle patents(fosspatents.blogspot.com)
18 points by FlorianMueller 16y ago|7 comments
120.
by FlorianMueller 16y ago
Yes, my article on this states: "t's important to note the difference between MPEG, the standardization body, and MPEG LA, the licensing agency. MPEG defines standards, and those can be royalty-free or royalty-bearing, depending on what the

More ›