|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 08:30 AM EDT |
Why should anyone contribute to a system that claims to be
FREE and for the public domain, when afterwords the donator
can get sued to buy back (license) his own contribution?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
See, just mile and miles of endless discussion on something that is not even
relevant to the case before the court.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT |
If I am wrong about this, someone please correct me.
It's my understanding that Bloch wrote rangeCheck for the first time while a Sun
employee, which would probably make the first version a work-for-hire and thus
Sun's property.
What was donated as a non-Sun-employee was the later timsort port to Java.
If that contains a "copy" of the original rangeCheck code, then this
would be (at least for the Harmony/Android result) improper - Bloch seemed to
freely admit as much. If it contains a re-implementation of something trivial,
which came out the same because the same coder faced the same highly specific
requirement, then it would probably be okay, but Bloch didn't seem to be
championing that possibility.
This may be the only case Oracle actually has, which would make the whole thing
laughable insignificant. If Oracle really wants their quarter ounce of flesh
over that, they can probably have it - it would not affect Google or Android in
the slightest.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jvillain on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 11:02 PM EDT |
Yes all those people signing over their copyrights to Canonical need to be
worried about this. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: hAckz0r on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 11:05 AM EDT |
Now that contributing to Open Source has shown a slight Achilles Heel, I can
almost hear Microsoft now spinning this to create some more
FACTS FUD for a new campaign. Watch for Microsoft to declare
that this will never be a problem for their little utopia at CodePlex, but then
"beware of all other sites that might try sue the developer!"
---
DRM - As a "solution", it solves the wrong problem; As a
"technology" its only 'logically' infeasible. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
