>Google copied 2.5 megabytes of code from more than 700 Linux kernel header files with a homemade program that drops source code comments and some other elements, and daringly claims (in a notice at the start of each generated file) that the extracted material constitutes "no copyrightable information"./****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************
***
*** This header was automatically generated from a Linux kernel header
*** of the same name, to make information necessary for userspace to
*** call into the kernel available to libc. It contains only constants,
*** structures, and macros generated from the original header, and thus,
*** contains no copyrightable information.
***
*** To edit the content of this header, modify the corresponding
*** source file (e.g. under external/kernel-headers/original/) then
*** run bionic/libc/kernel/tools/update_all.py
***
*** Any manual change here will be lost the next time this script will
*** be run. You've been warned!
***
****************************************************************************
****************************************************************************/
They've done the same to numerous other companies code. And now they did the same to Oracle.
Twist: Oracle decided to sue. The Courts found that actually, the material is copyright.
Twist 2: Google then went to Court again to argue that even though it was copyrighted, it was "fair use" for them to take MBs of code this way, "clean" them with a script that clears out comments, and then relicense them as they pleased. The Court sided with Google.
Seriously, how isn't this blatant copyright violation? We are talking about MBs of code, including function definitions (not just declarations).
>>54885254
>Seriously, how isn't this blatant copyright violation? We are talking about MBs of code, including function definitions (not just declarations).
Google lied
What's surprising it's that they somehow got to beat Oracle, the undisputed master in software patent courts
linux isn't copyrighted. Unix is, but not linux.
also, it's not a violation of linux's GPL license as long as google isn't selling android, which they aren't. they let people use android for free.
if you don't think the FSF and the linux foundation would have sued google for this years ago if they were violating licenses and copyright you're a complete idiot.
bottom line is you don't have any fucking idea what you're talking about with respect to fair use, licensing, and copyright law.
>>54885572
You don't sue google, idiot.
They could kill your entire family and they'd have the lawyer power to get away with it.
>>54885572
>/g/ - I don't mind that Google admits to flagrantly abusing open source code, reading my emails, saving my searches, and selling my information to ad companies as long as Android is cheap!
At this point Mac and Windows users have more of a backbone.
>>54885572
>linux isn't copyrighted
The GPL is a copyright, thus the Linux kernel is copyrighted, edgy faggots like to call anything that's FOSS or even just open source copyleft, but it's still a copyright by definition
>if you don't think the FSF and the linux foundation would have sued google for this years ago if they were violating licenses and copyright you're a complete idiot.
The FSF would if it was more blatant and they could amass enough money, the Linux Foundation doesn't really care about enforcing the GPL
>>54885572
>also, it's not a violation of linux's GPL license as long as google isn't selling android, which they aren't. they let people use android for free.
You can sell stuff that's under the GPL, which is commonly done, commercialization doesn't breach anything in the GPL
The material shouldn't be copyrightable. It technically is under US law at the moment. Even so, the linux kernel is licensed under the GPL, google is free to do whatever the fuck they want as long as they leave it GPL'd and distribute the header files they stripped. (they do just that)
They should not be copyrightable because these header files define an interface for systems to interact with each other. For such an interface to be locked behind copyright means breaking the very foundation the internet is built on.
>>54885572
>it's not a violation of linux's GPL license as long as google isn't selling android
Please stop spreading this misinformation. It is absolutely wrong and casts the GPL in a terrible light.
The GPL literally grants you the right to modify the software as long as you're not selling it. It doesn't matter if you label it a copyright or not.
>>54885677
Is this trolling? Is this what trolling looks like today?
>>54885254
>Twist 2: Google then went to Court again to argue that even though it was copyrighted, it was "fair use" for them to take MBs of code this way, "clean" them with a script that clears out comments, and then relicense them as they pleased.
Fucking kikes, I swear.
>The Court sided with Google.
Ahahahahaha.
Jesus Christ, it's over. We lost.
>>54885254
so, you are admitting that open source and GPL is a fail strategy to make companies like google even richer?
Am I being trolled? What the fuck /g/? Why is everyone trying to spread disinfo and lies? Is it because hating Google is a meme? Do you not understand what it means for an API to be copyrightable? Do you not realize how critical it is for everyone's free expression that Google have beaten Oracle on this fair use trial after the bullshit previous ruling?
So its immoral to make a linux based OS...with widely available and free code ok then. That makes absolutely no fucking sense but ok then.
You only give a shit because the company making the most adopted and beloved linux version is Google
the way im seeing this is google made a linux based OS. 2 of them in fact. they did this in a world with over 500 other linux distros. But you dont care about those 'other' linux based OS'es only google?
So it comes down to this.
500+ LINUX DISTROS=GOOD.
GOOGLE MAKES TWO LINUX DISTROS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY FREE FOR ALL=BAD!!!
>>54885756
fuck off kike. nobody cares about the ((us)) software ((industry))
>>54885778
enjoy your software patents, kike
>>54885766
>>54885756
Oh, pajeet. Just because it's cheap software didn't make it good.
>>54885808
That doesnt matter now does it dicknuts? My point is that ANYONE can make and distribute a version of linux if they like.
So what the hell does it matter if google does it also?
"Oh noes they are using our code that we freely make available and distribute" But you dont wanna sue canonical for the exact same fuckin shit do you?
>>54885572
>linux isn't copyrighted.
yes it is. When you say "not copyrighted", it means public domain, and linux is not public domain.
> FSF and the linux foundation would have sued google
they would, unless Google paid for it. that is some secret shady side of this open source business; there are dozens of manufacturers using modified linux kernel in their products and not releasing the source but somehow not get sued by Linux Foundation, hence "the only thing open about the business of OSS is the source".
The point here is KERNEL HEADER FILE.
Technically header file is the API, so it fall under fair use.
>>54885880
So what you're saying is linux is copyright protected and thus is NOT free as in freedom?
Well that's news to me. And also shady as fuck.
>>54885911
>So what you're saying is linux is copyright protected and thus is NOT free as in freedom?
The GPL is a copyright you dumb fuck
>>54885911
The linux kernel is copyrighted under the GNU GPL, and is free as in freedom. Are you done?
>>54885911
>>54885850
GPL does not mean "anyone can make and distribute, then sell under a different license, their own version of Linux". It also doesn't mean "not copyrighted, do whatever you want!" I seriously hope you don't think that.
>>54885936
If its copyrighted then its not free as in freedom. Freedom means free to do with as you so choose.
And if this is the case then yeah im done...with Linux. I'll be dropping mint immediately.
But i'll keep using android just to irritate you hypocrites.
>>54885254
>Google copied 2.5 megabytes of code from more than 700 Linux kernel header files with a homemade program that drops source code comments and some other elements, and daringly claims (in a notice at the start of each generated file) that the extracted material constitutes "no copyrightable information".
They're right! Both legally and morally.
>>54885911
Copyright enforces the license. Without it there's no license to enforce, hence public domain.
Copyright is a means to attribute a personality to the product. Don't get stuck to the term "copy".
>>54885978
Linux is copyrighted under the GNU GPL. It is free software. You cannot redistribute under a different license without permission to relicense from every single contributor who has touched the code you wish to relicense. You cannot modify without making your modifications available in some form. There's a few other things but that's the basics. Read the COPYING files or take a look at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html (most of linux is GPLv2)
>>54885959
And yet I can currently buy several different versions of linux from several different companies.
Yet its wrong for google to distibute its own versions at zero cost?
I'm not concerned about your legal arguements. your morality/logic is what I find deeply flawed.
>>54885254
copy my dick
>>54885254
I'm not very up to date on this subject, but can someone help me with a few questions:
- Did google copy code from a project licensed with GPL?
- Is the finished software from Google licensed under GPL?
- What is the nature of the thing they copied? I read that it's an API, but I don't know much about it.
>>54885978
you are literally a retard
>>54885677
Go read the GPL you stupid fuck. You CAN sell anything that's GPL licensed without giving a cent to whoever's code you used. The only stipulation of GPL is that the code that you sell must be open source and also licensed under GPL. Of course anyone with a good brain can find your source code and build himself a free copy of your product but that's besides the point.
>>54886145
no shit, but my point was that google isn't doing anything wrong.
>>54886040
>>54885978
>its not free as in freedom
>mint
This has to be a joke.
>>54885911
>>54885978
You don't understand copyright do you? Or free as in freedom?
Copyright is given to a creator whenever they create something. If you take a picture, for example, you have the copyright on it and all rights legally given to you as a result.
The copyright holder can then license their creations however they'd like. Some may choose a restrictive licensing eg "Fuck off and never use this" while others may choose a less restrictive one eg "Do whatever you want" or forfeit rights on it and allow it to become public domain.
Free as in freedom software is software that has four specific freedoms:
>The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
>The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
>The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
>The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
src: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
If a copyright holder licenses their creation under a license that allows these freedoms, it's still free software. GPL, for example, specifically allows for all of these, thus open source programs licensed under the GPL are, by definition, free.
Other copyright licenses exist that allow for those freedoms are the Berkeley license and the WTFPL (which some of linux is licensed under)
Here's the terms of the WTFPLv2 license, for illustrative purposesDO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.
the reader is left to determine which of the BSD or GPL license is more free as an exercise.
>>54885254
I'm not Oracle fan (hate Larry with a passion) but I was actually expecting a win from Oracle. The reason is, Java SDK is not some blunt plain API, it's an elaborate structured design, and "structure, sequence and organization" of a software is copyrightable by law.
>>54886244
You can't copyright structure/etc. You can patent it though.
If android is open sourced doesn't that mean google doesn't violate GPL?
>>54886276
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure,_sequence_and_organization
>>54886232
>WTFPL
but it still has a Copyright line, which you did not print in that block
a license, any contract, is void unless it mentions the involved parties by name. that contract does not stand by itself without names, i.e. Copyright line.
>>54886460
>but it still has a Copyright line, which you did not print in that block
I hit the character limit trying to include the whole thing ;_;
>>54886481
ok, but that is the most important part in this discussion.
even that WTFPL license has a restriction: it says "do whatever the fuck you want, except YOU CAN'T ASSUME OWNERSHIP".
because if I can claim ownership, which I can if it has no copyright line, then I can sue anyone using that software. That's why it's said "never put software in public domain unless it's totally crap, stale or trivial enough that noone will bother to own".
>>54886176
They are violating GPL by changing the license, that's what OP was saying.
>>54886082
Yes.
No.
An API is an interface to something (the kernel in this case). It's like a set of buttons that programs have to push to get the kernel to do things (e.g. to open a file). An API doesn't include what's actually inside the kernel (meaning it doesn't include the code that actually does the work), just the interface itself.
>>54885572
You don't know what copyright is. Every code if sufficiently original is protected by the law, ipso iure.
>>54885911
That's not what freedom means you memeing fuck
It's called the GPL. This is literally what the GPL was made for. Anyone can modify Linux or Java code and release new versions of then themselves as long as they also publish the code of their versions and allow people to do the same with their versions.
>>54885254
Looks different enough to me.
>>54885601
I wish Google was fighting for authoritarian white supremacy. With Google, we can save our people and stop the Jew menace.
>>54885572
>linux isn't copyrighted.
that's absolute horsecock gobshit
>>54885572
>I don't know shit about licenses but I've read this somewhere on /g/, thus it must be right
