|
|
|
| Authored by: darrellb on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 12:56 PM EST |
I don't see how any of the claims, counterclaims, or issues raised in pleadings
relate to the GPL at all. If one of the parties had raised GPL claims, then the
GPL subject would be relevant to the public's interest. Since the GPL isn't an
issue in the case, the fact that the public doesn't get to see those license
terms isn't relevant. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- We the public - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 02:20 PM EST
- We the public - Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 02:36 PM EST
- We the public - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 02:51 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 02:30 PM EST |
As I understand it pretty much the only part of Android under the GPL is the
Kernel. Samsung could make some contribution into the kernel, if they haven't
already, then raise the issue with HTC itself. Surely they have some qualified
programmers somewhere.
But I'm not sure what that gets them. It won't help with Apple since Apple
doesn't use Android.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 12 2012 @ 05:17 PM EST |
I don't think that it matters though as those design pattents apply to design,
which is either the hardware or the user interface (BSD-licensed Android), so
neither touches the GNUlicensed Linux kernal.
But I guess they (or others) sued with those pattents might be able to request
HTC/Linux Foundation for a waiver
On which HTC would be forced to show the agreement, or withdraw from Android.
Which would loose them the US marked or European Andoid marked and a huge loss
for customers, but might increase Samsungs marked share, and pay-off for
continueing the fight.
MBB
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 02:33 AM EST |
But can redactions be used to protect criminal activity such
as copyright infringement? I do not believe this is the case
in UK. I think it certainly isn't the case with NDAs where
contract law does not allow enforcement of contract
conditions which require either party to break the law -
although strictly speaking it only enforces concealment of
criminal activity.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, December 13 2012 @ 09:35 PM EST |
That's my point. Unless it's public, the kernel
authors can't know if their rights have been
violated or not.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
