Re: Oh Really ??
hmm .. trying to work out if there's anything true in that comment .. not looking good so far!
17 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Apr 2009
It's time to make phone companies partly responsible for security. For the large number of people on contract phones (not me anymore - fed up with it!) then if the phone companies want to lock down these phones they should also be made to provide timely updates. If the phones aren't made secure in a timely fashion then that should be reason to void the contract. In fact, if they're knowingly not providing security fixes, that's probably breaking some law or other already - maybe it's time for a test legal case?!
There seems to be a popular misconception in this article that Java isn't fully open-source. Java, or more precisely OpenJDK, is a fully open, fully certified implementation of Java, and therefore under GPL has *no* field of use restrictions. The restrictions are in the testing kit, which means you can't have a fully open and certified Java implementation unless it's derived from OpenJDK and under a compatible license.
However, Android is not (and nor could it be) a certified Java implementation, and therefore the field of use conditions in the TCK would be irrelevant.
If Google had forked OpenJDK rather than Harmony to create Android then it's doubtful Oracle would have a leg to stand on.
>> "This is a complete subversion of why copyright came into existence in the first place."
> "I would argue completely to the contrary."
Copyright was originally intended to give a limited protection to original creators to encourage the creation of more artistic work. These images are a direct reproduction of an existing image that is in the public domain, and the original creators are long since dead and so rather unlikely to gain anything from this. Copyright has moved more and more in favour of large institutions, to the detriment of the individual. What individual living artist now has the legal or financial firepower to assert their copyright in the way the National Portrait Gallery is doing? Therefore, I stick by my assertion that copyrighting a reproduction is an all too common subversion of why copyright came into existence.
As for your White Cliffs argument, a photograph of this would of course be copyrightable, as it would be an artistic interpretation. In the same way an artistic reinterpretation of the images in the NPG would be copyrightable. However, the whole essence of a reproduction is to not bring any additional creative interpretation to the image. Therefore, what exactly is copyrightable? For once our American friends have it right (and I don't say that on here often! :-) )
Apologies for the belated response - a rare excursion away from the laptop.
As a UK taxpayer and someone with a strong track record working in the arts sector I couldn't disagree with you more. As far as I'm concerned, public investment should mean public ownership, and therefore use of these images should be openly available to the UK public at the very least. I also find it disturbing that it's possible to copyright reproductions of public domain works anyway. This is a complete subversion of why copyright came into existence in the first place.
Whatever your opinion of RMS, calling him Communist is just plain wrong. I'm fed up of hearing this argument about free software - these ideals have more in common with Liberalism (the proper European kind, not what Amercans think it means!) and Libertarianism. Me thinks you're barking up the wrong side of the political tree!
That 'Be a patriot' sticker has nothing to do with piracy. It's from the (fictional) US Bureau of Morality. Did you miss the satire? Are you American? :-)
There have been two NIN albums in the last two years, both available for download, and both under Creative Commons licensing (albeit with the non-commercial clause that even CC haven't worked out what it means yet!). Whatever you think of his music, as far as I'm concerned NIN are going in the right direction regarding the future of music distribution.
His judgement on the iPhone I'm less sure about! :-)
I recently upgraded and was going to have to pay for voicemail. Luckily, the guy in the T-Mobile shop told me the same hint - set your own number as the voicemail number and it's free.
Comes to something when even their own staff think it's a lousy practice! :-)