Posts by Ian Michael Gumby

@Hagan, talk to lawyers much?

"The remarks about creativity serve only to emphasise his purely legal background. Any software engineer worth their salt will tell you that *most* of the creativity in a complex software product comes with defining the interface. Actually implementing it is usually easier. (In the past, the interface designers called themselves architects and were on a higher pay grade.)"

I suggest you talk to lawyers and try to understand that even though we both speak English, there are legal connotations to the meaning of 'Creative'.

@Vic

I suggest you go back and look at the arguments being made.

Google is suggesting that they can strip a copyrighted document to a point where it loses its copyright, allowing them to then issue the document under a different copyright license.

Lawyers opposing this notion say that you cannot do this.

Your reference to the SCO/Linux issue is not a good parallel. I suggest you go back to the complaint and see why that is.

@Zolko

"I have a Dell Streak, with Android 2.2, and some people wanted to port MeeGo on it. They did it, but where struck with proprietary drivers for the video chip that were compiled against the kernel headers - these exact headers that are at stake here - and are therefore not compatible with the MeeGo kernel headers, so there is no 3D hardware acceleration possible for MeeGo."

Its not a question of being physically unable to work, but licensing issues.

Google is attempting to circumvent copyright law by saying if we take a copyright document... strip out this, that, and the other thing, what's left is something that really isn't creative and should be protected under copyright law. What the lawyers who are critical of Google are saying is that Google can't do it. Stripping down a copyright protected document to a base document is not the same thing as building up the same base document from scratch. In the end, both base documents could contain the same material, however its the process of how they obtained the based document that is at issue.

The various flavors of GPL protect the authors of their code, and I believe that the GPL doesn't prohibit the authors of releasing the same software under different license. That is to say that Google could pay those copyright holders to release the code to them under a different license so that they have a right to use it.

But then again, here's the rub. Google isn't doing that. What they are doing is trying to get around the law by getting creative and then hoping that they don't get caught.

Look at it this way...

You have a project that is built on Apache's license. There's a piece of code that you want to use that is licensed under GPL. GPL has restrictions on use that you do not have with Apache. What Google is trying to do is to trash the copyright laws and re-release a modified version of the code under Apache.

NOT ALL OPEN SOURCE LICENSES ARE CREATED EQUAL. Sorry to shout but that's a concept that many of the commentards don't quite grok. Under Apache, you release it, as long as I attribute you as the author, I can do whatever I want. I can take your code you wrote and gave away for free and embed it in my 'for profit' product and make millions off your work. GPL? Not so much. I embed GPL code, where I made modifications that gave me a proprietary advantage, and I have to release that code to the public.

You have two examples...

1) Apple and the GNU C/C++ compiler. Or rather NeXT. NeXT modded the gnu C compiler to do Objective-C which is the base language for NeXTStep, OS X, and iOS. Under GPL, Apple had to release their mods. However Apple didn't have to release their libraries...

2) Apache's Hadoop (HBase) project. One can take LZO compression to make Hadoop more efficient. Because LZO's GPL is not compatible with Apache's license, Apache and Cloudera made the choice of not including it in their release, but allow the end users to add it if they wanted.

Both actions are legal and ethical. Google's? Not so much.

Shill? Sorry no

Sorry I'm no fan of Microsoft.

Gate's mommy and daddy were lawyers and Gate's learned from their lack of ethics. Why else do you think he's giving the bulk of his money away? Could it be that he's got a guilty conscience from screwing over people? Sorry I digress... The point is that Gates and Microsoft showed that its profitable to break the rules and then pay off the lawyers.

Google learned from Microsoft. They are a monopoly, except that they haven't been declared a monopoly by the courts. Only IBM and Microsoft have that distinction and once you're defined as a monopoly, the rules of business change.

Unless you have proof that Microsoft is behind this, then you're blowing hot air. Like I said, Oracle and IBM have as much if not more to gain than Microsoft. (Albeit, Microsoft has something to gain too.)

I'll repeat it again slowly...

Big companies hire attorneys who are specialists in certain fields. The more notable the attorney, the more likely they will get targeted by the large software companies. Unless the attorney is actively on retainer or working for Microsoft, you're the one creating FUD.

Try and focus on the issue.

@Glen

"Now you've got to find a copyright holder of an inline function that is willing to sue. Sure IBM or Oracle might have enough money to take on Google, but why would they? It would run counter to their own interests."

No, absolutely not.

Look, Oracle is set to lose billions on Java ME licensing if Google prevails in the Oracle/Google Java/Android lawsuit. So Oracle has a lot of skin in the game and it is in their best interest to sue.

It is also in IBM's best interest to have Oracle win the lawsuit because they too will gain from a single variant of Java even though they don't really play in the Java ME space. Think of IBM supporting Oracle so that they get a favor from Oracle down the road.

Its also in a lot of people's best interest because of the potential harm that this could do to the existing copyright laws. That you can essentially strip away copyright protection by claiming that what's left isn't creative enough to be copyrighted.

While some in the Open Source community hate Oracle for their aggressive stance on Java, they aren't the bad ones here and Google is playing loose with copyright laws.

@Vic

"The only unknown here is why the media keep repeating obviously bogus claims from lawyers in the pay of Microsoft, when the copyright owners (such as Torvalds) have already said that there is nothing to see here."

Unfortunately you're wrong.

Look, here's the underlying issue. Or at least one of them... you cannot take software that is copyrighted and 'filter' it to the point where the resulting code is *not* *a* *derivative* *work* which would violate its copyright and then try to copyright the derivative work under Apache's license because it is more 'big business' friendly.

Are you and other commentards not capable of understanding the dangers of what Google is proposing to do? Essentially they are rewriting the copyright laws. Notice how Honeycomb isn't open? Now why do you think that is?

Google screws artists by under paying them as they make money off YouTube playing their material. The chocolate factory *is* *evil*. You're just in denial.

It doesn't matter.

Look, lawyers work for clients who are paying them and customers tend to go to lawyers who have some industry knowledge on these types of topics.

If you pay attention to the issue at hand...

Google is saying: "We stripped out the unique stuff and are left with the non-creative parts, therefore we are not violating the copyrights and we can then copyright our stuff under Apache's more open rights system."

What the other lawyers are saying: " You can't strip out enough stuff or say that the underlying framework is by itself not enough to copyright." And... "You start with a document that is protected by copyright and then reduce the document to something that loses the copyright? That's not right... "

The nice thing is that lawyers are paid to argue both sides of an issue. It will take a judge to determine who is right.

But to credit this 'FUD' to Microsoft is a bit biased. Microsoft has very little skin in the game. And it isn't FUD.

The risk is there. No, not to the application developer who writes an application that sits on Android. But the phone manufacturer that uses Android and then modifies Android to add features or improve the OS for better energy management. These are the people who are going to feel the heat on this.

At the same time, it adds more weight to Oracle's arguments.

The bottom line is that there is enough of a case that it will go to the courts and the courts will be conservative on this issue.

IMHO Google is on thin ice. Were they to have done a clean room version... then things would be different. But Google took shortcuts and they are now starting to bite them in the arse.

Huh?

First, Giffords is very rare in that she survived the head wound. Even rarer is that she's not a veggie.

Stem Cells? Hate to break it to you, but once you've hit a certain age as an infant, you don't grow any more brain cells. You lose it, its gone for good. No chance Stem cells will help with a brain injury.

Now I would have understood your post if you had questioned the IT angle. There really isn't one except that her hubby is an astronaut which is why she wants to go and wave bye-bye to him as he takes off.

Sure its a photo op and a chance to show her miracle recovery.

But don't be a hater.

K?

@Borked: Google is *evil*...

Look, you are entitled to your opinion and I support your right for voicing your opinion...

However you wrote:

"Like Skelband (above) I think it's a shame that the vast majority of our cultural history is vanishing into obscurity, and I think it'd be a worthwhile project to make these works accessible to the public in the public domain (judge a society by its libraries and all that) but that mustn't mean granting the rights to those works to a private company. Public domain should mean precisely that. Something like a creative commons licence, perhaps"

The issue isn't about 'books in the public domain'. Lets make sure we're talking about the same thing... those are books where the copyright has run out. Jack London's entire works are now in that category.

(His writing are now for the most part 90-100 years old.)

Legally anyone can copy those since they *are* in the public domain.

What Google wants to do is to copy 'orphaned' works or digitize works that are still under copyright protection and to force the authors to 'opt-out' of the plan or accept whatever cut Google wants to pay for it. These are works that were published prior to the electronic age so that there doesn't already exist a digital copy of the works and are now out of print.

If you are worried about 'public domain books', you should look at project Gutenberg ?sp? which is in the process of copying books.

BTW... Google did attempt to get a patent on their apparatus for copying books even though it isn't all that new or novel. They did this in effect to create a barrier to entry for anyone who wants to start their own copying effort. (Amazon, Microsoft, etc...)

Of course... if the book isn't a rare book, one can disassemble the book, do the copying and then re-glue the binding if they so desire. Or just toss it as a sacrifice to bettering the world.

Toddlers? Don't you really mean...

Those commentards who flamed Lewis?

@ Sean... Actually I think that the original OP is right...

Yes Sean, you are correct. The plant survived a 9.0 earth quake. Its a testament to over engineering that they are standing.

What caused all of the problems was the Tsunami knocking out both levels of backups.

If that hadn't happened, then the reactors would have gone offline correctly and the the pumps would have continued to cool them down in a controlled fashion.

So the question is why did both levels of back up reactors fail? Could they have designed that better? Absolutely because its not as big a problem to solve and you don't need slide rulers.

The problem was that no one really thought about the double whammy of a huge earthquake and then the Tsunami.

Of course this is all hindsight. Japan will replace them with safer more modern technology and they will recover.

Only next time, they'll consider the possibility of such a double whammy.

Media Focuses on the now not the past.

Yeah, its a cynical position.

But the Quake and Tsunami have passed.

Unlike Katrina, the Japanese people are handling the lack of food/supplies like normal rational people.

Until there are riots the only news is that the recovery process is happening. So what does it take to report on the sad number of fatalities?

But the nuke disaster is happening now.

So the reporters are like vultures watching a train wreck happening and reporting on it.

They are just pandering to us, the viewers and readers.

@ Ralph 5

"For example, I recently read an article by the same author describing this as a 'triumph' for nuclear power. "

Huh?

Do you not understand that the reactors survived a quake that was upgraded and registered 9.0?

That is beyond the designed rating. And yes, 9.0 is an order of magnitude worse than an 8.0.

The reactors failed as planned.

What didn't go as planned is that they they got hit by the Tsunami and both series of back up generators failed.

Let me be clear. The back ups failed, and the back up generators to the back ups failed. (That's two levels of redundancy)

Its the lack of water pumping to continue the cooling process is what's causing the trouble and danger.

The point is that the quake and tsunami combo punch was a disaster beyond what the designers comprehended.

Lewis is right. The fact that the plant survived the quake intact and the disaster isn't worse is a bit of a triumph.

Safety is no accident.

"... I would think that is quite obvious at this point; the Japanese PM is evacuating tens of thousands of people, the severity has been upgraded to 6 (just one notch below Chernobil but there is no chance for a solution in sight). What I question is why The Reg lets these ridiculously biased articles being published; it seriously undermines the credibility of an otherwise fine publication..."

Are you really that daft?

While the odds of anything really bad happening, and luckily no serious injuries have occurred, don't you think that it makes sense to still take precautions?

Here in Illinois there are something like 6+ active nuke plants where 2 of the oldest plants are near a fault line. (Not a very active fault line since we don't get many earthquakes in IL that are even noticeable.)

Since these plants have the same design, the local nutters are wiggin out.

Common sense points out the following:

1) Illinois (USA) hasn't had a *major* earthquake in years.

Largest earthquake recorded was measured at 5.3. Note the scale is *logarithmic*

That was back in '68 I think.. well before you were born. 5.3 vs 9.0, big difference.

2) Tsunami? If Illinois got hit with a Tsunami, either you'd be dead, or this guy Noah really existed...

The point is that as Lewis brilliantly pointed out in his first article that the safety features worked, albeit that the plant took a hit at 9.0 harder than it was initially designed for, and that if the back up generators and their backups hadn't failed, we wouldn't have had this problem in the first place.

What I find troubling are twits like yourself. You want electricity but you don't want to be realistic about what it takes to generate it. Nuke plants being designed today are safer that the plants designed 30+ years ago. But they wont get built because of the FUD being created by these mindless twits who protest anything at a drop of the hat.

Fossil fuels? Yeah, we've got one of the oldest and dirtiest coal plants just across the state lines in Indiana that supplies power to Chicago and beyond. This plant was grandfathered so that it didn't have to shut down or put very expensive upgrades to reduce their emissions. (The power companies exploited a loophole that allowed older plants that should have been phased out from getting these mandatory upgrades.) But again, protesters about the CO2 emissions. Solar? Not good enough? Wind? Not good enough and many would protest about the ecological damages that Solar and Wind generators do to the environment. (Yes, they do have an ecological impact too.)

Do the math. Nuke power is necessary and cleaner and safer than other forms of energy. In fact, I'll wager that you have had more deaths involved in the production of non-nuclear energy than you do from nuclear energy.

@ It wasn't me

Wow.

Unlike you, when I post its either to comment on topic, or to flame a commetard.

Unlike you, I actually have a life out of here where I do real work for a living.

The irony here is that while you don't like my opinion, you lack the ability to actually debate what I say and provide real historical facts to back up your statement.

Now, I'll admit, I do make mistakes. Dan G. caught one mistake where I took one of the defense's arguments as fact because the claim had been reported on by many newspapers.

Do your homework. You might learn something in the process.

Not exactly...

"Any smidgeon of potential *diplomatic* support he may have been able to get (i.e. slightly outside the rule book) is now off limits - after all, Assange supporters could *cough* "expose" that too. So well done. Gillard rather dryly referred to Assange's behaviour - methinks she has his measure well and true.."

First Assange wasn't politically connected to have any 'slightly outside the rule book' help available. Nor was he rich or famous. Just infamous.

Second. Despite his personal attack on Gillard, he will still be afforded the rights he has as an Australian citizen. That is when he loses his appeal, he can make a call to the Australian Consulate in Sweden and seek assistance.

There's actually some irony in this... he has the freedom to be an ass, and the governments that he protests against will actually defend his rights to be an ass.

@ Tom 38, Presumption of innocense?

"Precisely what law has Birgitta Jónsdóttir broken? Nice to see you assume that she is a brazen criminal, since the US authorities are doing some fishing."

Uhm dude, hate to break it to you...

First this isn't a fishing expedition. Its a very limited search on a few individuals who have already made their identities public and there is a legitimate tie between them and Wikileaks.

You seem confused by the concept of 'presumed innocent until proven guilty'.

It appears that you are the one making an assumption that Birgitta Jonsdottir has been accused of breaking a law since her Twitter account is one of those under investigation. The fact that they are investigating means that they don't know the answer and are looking for clues and more information to determine who did what and when.

But I digress. The point I wanted to make was that the presumption of innocence deals with the defendant during trial. That is that the defendant is presumed innocent until the prosecution can show that there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty.

You don't charge anyone with a crime until you have concluded your investigation and this is why they are asking Twitter to honor their subpoena request.

And using your hypothetical example... if your ex-GF has credible evidence of rape or enough to warrant a police investigation, then the answer is yes. If there is something in your Facebook page, or viewing history that is relevant to the rape investigation then the police do have the right to search your internet surfing habits.

Huh?

Where do you read that the log data is tainted?

I don't think you fully comprehend what they say in their ULA.

No double irony... just irony on the part of wikileaks supporters.

The US Government is arguing that there is an ongoing investigation and that the information that Twitter has on these account holders is beneficial to their investigation.

Its like saying that the government wants a search warrant to search a house because they have reason to believe that the murder weapon is stashed there.

There is no irony because the government is going to the government to get permission to get this information. That is... through this process, the government is actually protecting the privacy of all individuals.

The only irony is that exists is that those who are fighting to keep their information private are the same people who argue for transparency.