* Posts by jilocasin

35 posts • joined 20 Apr 2012

Chef melts under heat, will 86 future deals with family-separating US immigration agencies


Re: Screw Chef

As opposed to the alternative?

Staying put and letting your children;


be sexually abused

be killed by lawless gangs

be killed by lawless government agents

Pick any one (or all) of the above. Dragging your children across the desert to enter another, much safer, country sounds like the smartest thing a parent might do.


Re: Go woke go broke

You are giving Chef too much credit. There is no 'Wokeness' to be found here, just cold hard accounting.

If you compare the initial response to this latest one, what's readily apparent is that other 'paying' customers were starting to get uncomfortable/complain. They were risking much more money from losing their 'other' customers over this than they stood to make continuing with this contract. They could care less about their employees complaints, those had been going on for a while and hadn't stopped them from signing. They sure as heck haven't gotten 'woke' to any extent.


Re: Open source licenses and moral compass exclusions

For the most part they don't.

What this developer did (as was covered in the original piece) was to take down his repository. Anyone who had the code was free to keep using it under the terms of the open source license it was released under. What they couldn't do was get a copy from *his* repo. He was well within his rights to say in effect; "what ICE is doing is wrong, what Chef is doing is wrong supporting that, and I want to make it known that I *personally* don't agree with it.

The license is rather besides the point. He could have done the same thing under a suitable commercial license, although it would have been easier to include a morality clause in a commercial license.

Had Chef, as a competent commercial entity done the sensible thing, it would have been a non issue. Some smaller companies / independent developers would have noticed, but Chef's customers would have been fine. Unfortunately for Chef, while they took advantage of applicable open source code (good) they were too sloppy/lazy/cheap to host their own tool chain (bad). The effect being that when he 'closed' his repo, their product and their customer's installs, broke.

The fact that this served to magnify the point the developer was trying to make by calling attention to what he felt was a questionable contract was just icing on the cake. That Chef's employees and 'other' customers might feel the same, once they were made aware of it, if why Chef changed course.

You don't get points for doing the right thing only when all other options have been exhausted.


Re: "South America where the US govt has brought Freedom and Democracy(tm)"

As Churchill once said;

"Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"


Re: "don't enter the country illegally"

Once again, you aren't letting facts get in the way of your arguments. Mexico *isn't* legally a _safe_ country (no surprise there) and they would have had to walk all the way across the United States to get to Canada. According to your own logic, it would be illegal for them to apply for asylm in Canada having reached the 'safe country' of the United States first.


Re: "don't enter the country illegally"


"...and just showing up without warning and expecting to be let in isn't it."

It exactly is. Many courts have said so before and continue to say so. The most recent was when Trump unilaterally declared that the *only* place to claim asylm would be at border crossing points. The law itself states that you must be *physically present in the United States to apply for asylm* which is why you can't do so at an embassy or consulate.

This has a long and proud tradition dating back at least as far as the Cuban "wet foot / dry foot" policy if not before. During the mass Cuban exodus there was a policy that as long as a Cuban trying to enter the country hadn't stepped onto 'dry land' they could be turned back, but the moment they no longer had 'wet feet' they could claim asylm. They kind of have to as that's how the law's written.


Re: Screw Chef

Well there are a couple of holes (large ones at that) with your analysis.

Most people have no problem with detainment, either at the border, or within the country. This is the same whether your crime is the 'misdemeanor' offense of entering the country illegally/ overstaying your visa (which is how most people end up in the country illegally, NOT crossing the southern border) or murdering your fellow man. The problem many people have is with the human rights abuses. Even *convicted* murderers are treated better than children, some younger than four years old have been by this agency, and by extension the current administration. They have food, medical care, a dry bed to sleep on, toilet paper and tooth paste for $deity's sake. I'm talking about the murderers, not the children by the way in case you confused the two.

A large number of the people trying to claim asylum are fleeing persecution and death in their home countries. It takes quite a bit to drag your, sometimes infant children, thousands of miles for just the hope of a better life.

You don't like the people trying to enter the country legally, we get it. It doesn't mean that ICE or the Trump administration should get a free pass abusing children. Here's a reminder of how it's 'supposed' to work:

People enter the country (legally, illegally, overstay a visa, presenting themselves at a border crossing, doesn't matter) and claim asylm.

First a preliminary determination is made as to whether they might have a reasonable claim. Those that don't and / or don't win an appeal of that decision get put in line for deportation.

Then a determination is made of whether they are a danger to themselves or others. Those that are are housed in a secure yet humane facility until trial. Those that aren't given a court date, sometimes a GPS tracking device, sometimes a number to call in regularly until their court date. Of those that are released, over 89% (by the DOJ's own records) make their court dates.

If there are children involved and a determination has been made to incarcerate the parents, a search for any relatives or friends to take care of them is made and if any are found, they are placed into their custody. If there isn't anyone, the children are put into the usual child protective services until a determination of their and their parents status is arrived at.

If they are granted asylm, they get to stay, if not, they are deported.

Do you know what's missing from the above? Any mention of housing children like caged animals with little to no; food, clothing, medical care, education, or anything else those in the developed world believe human beings (even those incarcerated) are entitled to.

Just because the current administration wants to *send a message* that he's *tough on immigration*. Doesn't justify human rights abuses nor the agencies that perform them.

Committing human right abuses isn't _their_job_, or at least it shouldn't be.


Re: All's well that ends well?

I don't believe;

"...he was opposed to national sovereignty and national security?"

I think it was more the flagrant human rights abuses, especially those involving children.

Chef roasted for tech contract with family-separating US immigration, forks up attempt to quash protest


Actually it is.

I hate to break it to you, but;

"illegally entering the country and then trying to claim asylum is not an approved method of claiming asylum"

May not be approved, especially by the current administration and its followers, but it is *NOT* illegal. This has been confirmed by numerous courts.

The United States has laws, and international obligations, many stemming from the terrible way many countries treated fleeing Jews during WWII, that deal with people claiming asylum. But I see that you don't let little things like facts get in the way of racism and xenophobia. The DOJ's own statistics show that over 89% of asylum seekers return for their day in court ( https://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/fact-check-asylum-seekers-regularly-attend-immigration-court-hearings ). Hardly 'catch and release'.

Trump himself has publicly stated that he would like more people from Norway and less brown people as well as less from sh!th0le (predominantly black) countries.

Trump and his supporters are trying to blame the democrats, not for not passing immigration reform (there was a bill that was passed by BOTH houses, which although Trump promised to sign, vetoed instead), but for not passing legislation that would approve their current lawless actions.

People ARE fleeing violence and oppression in their home countries.

The US is directly or indirectly responsible for this state in many central and south american countries.

Most of those coming into the country are honest law abiding citizens (immigrants generally have a lower rate of crime than natural born citizens).

The US government is currently breaking the law with how they are treating asylm seekers.

Throwing people, especially children, in concentration camps to try and make a political point is abhorrent and morally repugnant.

Oh, and even Border Patrol says that a wall from coast to coast is; impossible to build, impracticable to maintain, and ultimately ineffectual as either a deterrent or an obstacle.

The gig (economy) is up: New California law upgrades Lyft, Uber, other app serfs to staff


Re: So what about

Actually social security was just one of the several examples I had chosen, and probably not a very good one at that.

Affordable Care Act requirements change based on the number of full-time employees (or equivalents) you employ and workman's compensation employer contributions in most states (Texas being an outlier) are based on the average employee's salary. Guess what happens if you hire lots of part-timers instead of fewer, higher paid full-timers? Yep, it's cheaper to hire part-timers.

Also, while the requirements to collect unemployment benefits vary from state to state in the US of A, it's generally determined in part on the employee meeting a minimum paid amount as measured against the average full-time wage. So what happens when you get fired/laid off from your faux full time job? You've been paying for unemployment that you aren't eligible to take advantage of.

Finally, as you are well aware, independent contractors (the subject of my response and the original article) are specifically _excluded_ as a group from those that an employer has to pay taxes, including social security (which being well researched in the area I am sure you already know). So mis-classifying your employees as independent contractors improperly removes that obligation from the employer leading to a marked saving in labor costs.

Black Helicopters

Re: So what about

As a society we have decided that workers, regardless of their skill level, are entitled to a certain base level of pay and certain other protections (in the US of A that would be things like social security and workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, etc.). Unfortunately capitalism, while a great motivator, has a lousy endgame. Taken to its logical conclusion, one person/company controls everything, and everyone else is just, well, not in a good place.

Originally you had to pay 'full price' (ss, wc, ub, etc.) for just your full time employees. The idea being that the majority of the workforce would be employed full time with some part time workers for seasonal or occasional work. I am sure you can guess what's happened in recent years. In some establishments the majority, if not the entirety (minus a manager or two) of the work force is now part-time. I've heard a worker mistakenly believe that they are 'full time' workers, because that's what their boss has told them. For example; "my company says that 'full-time' is 32 hours a week". Unfortunately it's only much later where they discover that while 'their company' considers that full time, the government doesn't, so no unemployment benefits, not accrual into their social security, etc. Of course you have to have 'open availability' so you can't even juggle more than one of these faux full-time jobs.

The 'gig-economy' is just the next logical progression. If as an employer I am required by law to pay my employees a certain minimum wage and contribute to certain benefits. I can pay less of these if I only employ part-time workers. That means that I don't have to pay _any_ of them, if I just reclassify them as 'not' my employees. I still get to tell them; what to work on, how to work on it, where to work on it, how much to change for it, and what systems, programs, etc. to use while doing it, but they are 'only contractors' (nudge nudge, wink wink).

If I am an independent contractor; programmer, doctor, lawyer, plumber, then I get to choose who I work with, what work I do, what tools I use, what and how much payment to accept, etc. You can't say that of the Uber / Lyft / Amazon Flex / Door Dash, string of companies. The plan is pretty much all the same. Come up with a system, usually containing an app of some sort (seeing how ubiquitous cell phones are even among the lower classes), that lets you effectively manage a remote workforce. Take a standard job; cab driver, delivery person, house cleaner, and *don't* hire a large work force. Have them do the work of whatever market you are in (at the 20-30% cost savings in labor), and collect your money.

That's B.S.

They are employees plain and simple. They are entitled to the same minimum protections as any other employee. The fact that they may not have specialized skills or realize that they are being taken advantage of doesn't negate that fact, it just makes it all the more important.

There once was a biz called Bitbucket, that told Mercurial to suck it. Now devs are dejected, their code soon ejected


Re: Only 3% use Mercurial

Thanks for that. Bit of brain rot setting in I suppose (exposure to VSS maybe?).

Perhaps if it was named Magnesial it would have shown more brightly, as opposed to mercury which while known for being quick is also known for causing madness.


Re: "has ever used Visual Sourcesafe."

Didn't really matter how large my team was when the VCS was VSS.

When working by myself; zip files were more reliable, results pushed to VSS on a regular basis. If, no when, it broke, I could quickly get back to where I was from my zips.

When working with others, the same, only it effected even more people.


Re: Only 3% use Mercurial

That assumes that the distribution of users to repo type is the same.

If we take your numbers as accurate [they are taken from a Stack Overflow Survey showing adoption by Stack Overflow Devs, not Bitbucket Users] this could mean (exaggerated for effect):

3% of users could all be using the same Mg repo, so yea, 300,000 users but only 1 repo.

3% of users using some rather small number of Mg repos << 300,000 repos.

Most Mg users have small 1 user private repos, so not a lot of code for the effort

There's a *huge* overlap in the users that use _both_ Mg and Git.

I think the folks at Atlassian have looked at the data store, the user base, and which way the winds are blowing and have determined that their effort is better spent supporting the growing Git base than the dwindling Mg one.


Re: "has ever used Visual Sourcesafe."

As someone unfortunate enough to have been cursed to operate in its presence, I can truly say (from experience *shudder*) that; "_no_VCS_ was actually better".

Or in my case, my handcrafted, timestamped, zip snapshots were MUCH better.

My favorite VSS tricks included; 'forgetting commits', 'forever locks of large portions of the repo', and my all time favorite - 'complete corruption of the repository on sync'. That last one requiring a complete restore from whatever backups you had.

CVS, *eh*

SVN, better but had issues, especially with branching and large repos

Mg, nice, but bloated and can be slow with large repos

Git, small fast, easy branching, handles large repos better than the above (even more so with recent patches).

Git was great if you didn't mind getting your hands dirty on a command line and were using Linux. Recent advances in tooling have made it friendlier to the GUI crowd and a first class citizen in Windows and MacOS. So I would rather take a simple, low overhead VCS that works (and is being continuously improved upon) or ones that don't. And I say this as someone who's used; CVS, VSS, SVN, Mg, and Git.

It's not like anyone is stopping anyone from using another VCS (well with the exception of VSS, thankfully).

Four more years! Four more years! Svelte Linux desktop Xfce gets first big update since 2015


Re: The better multi screen stuff is all I needed

I am _really_ hoping they've gotten support for a *left* secondary monitor figured out in this version. I was a long time XFCE user until I got a second monitor that was forced to be on the left. Then I had to move to KDE. Not the best support, but much better than; XFCE, Gnome, Unity, etc. at the time.

Oracle asks Supremes to snub Google's Java API copyright protest – and have a nice cuppa tea, instead


Re: Rather amusingly Sun had already Open Sourced Java by this point...

Actually they hadn't. Confusingly there were _three_ variants of Java at the time that Android was being developed; JavaME (for mobile), JavaSE (for desktop), JavaEE (for 'enterprise' or web servers). Sun had only open sourced JavaSE at that time and was still selling JavaME licenses to various device makers. There was an explicit restriction of use on the test suite to _certify_ a fork of JavaSE that prohibited it from being used in the mobile space where it would have competed with Sun's mobile offering. This is why Apache Harmony was never officially blessed by Sun. The license that Harmony was created under didn't allow for restrictions on use. It was JavaSE in everything but name, hence the 'Harmony' moniker. Without passing the still closed test suite forks couldn't legally call themselves Java.

Google wanted to use Java as the basis for the user land applications so that it could leverage the large number of existing Java developers. Unfortunately, JavaME was/is rubbish. Sun wanted Google to license JavaME for Android, but even though Google could have afforded the license, it wasn't fit for purpose. Google wanted to start with JavaSE and create an 'Android' version of JavaSE for Android. So they started with Apache Harmony and abiding by Harmony's license (perfectly legal) made the changes they felt were needed to get it to run better on a smartphone. They didn't NEED to do a clean room implementation, the Apache Harmony developers had already done that. Then Google wrote their own virtual machine Dalvik (as opposed to Sun's jvm) that runs it's own compiled version of the android 'Java' program. .dex (as opposed to Sun's .jar). APT has recently replaced Dalvik and Kotlin is rapidly replacing Java as the preferred language for development of android applications.

So as you can see, it's a rather confused mess and Sun hadn't 'actually' _open_sourced_ Java at this point. Sun had opened the JavaSE specs, but not the JVM or the test suite needed to certify an alternate implementation. JavaME and JavaEE were still closed and Sun was still getting licensing revenue (although rapidly dwindling by this point) from handheld manufacturers licensing JavaME. Oracle, bought Sun and sued Google for basically using Apache Harmony in a manner consistent with it's license and against what everyone else in the industry thought was propper. The judge took the time to learn to program and _correctly_ declared that you couldn't copyright API's etc. The Fed. Appeals Court, that has never seen a patent or copyright that should be granted/expanded regardless of the underlying law, overturned it. It went back and Google's use was ruled 'Fair Use'. Appealed back to the same court and again overturned. The only result the appeals court would allow was Copyright good, Oracle gets the money.

Hopefully the Supreme's correct this.


Re: Help to understand?

Sure, I'll give it a whack....

In order for programs to be inter-operable they have to have functions named the same that take the same parameters and return the same type of result. Take this example:

There is a library called Math and in the math library there is a collection of math related functions; add, subtract, multiply, divide.

A simple function to add two numbers together;

int add(int first, int second)

This mean the function name is "add" it takes two parameters that must be integers and it returns an integer.

To use it you would call "int X = add(2, 3)" and the variable X should contain the number 5.

For example Sun/Oracle could have written the function:

int add(int first, int second){

return first + second;


While Google could have written the function:

int add( int begin, int other){

int num_1 = begin;

int num_2 = other;

int answer = num_1 + num_2;

return answer;


What Google is accused of copying ISN'T any (well there was those 9 lines) actual SOURCE CODE (the stuff between the {} ). It was accused of copying the "int add(int, int)" and the Math.add(), Math.subtract(), ... arrangement. It is EXACTLY the things that Google is accused of copying that allow one program to be inter-operable with another. Up to this point is was always believed to be not protectable by copyright.

This was widely believed to have been decided in Baker v. Selden, a US Supreme Court case from 1879 ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/101/99 ) that defined the idea/expression dichotomy in copyright law. Unfortunately for all of us not named Oracle, Oracle threw a patent into the lawsuit and so it was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which has an absolutely horrible track record twisting the law to favor patenting everything under the sun. Recently it has had a number of cases overturned by the Supreme Court.

I hope this becomes another such case where the Supreme Court overturns the Appellate Court and rules that API's are unprotectable by copyright once and for all.

I hope that helps.

'Java 9, it did break some things,' Oracle bod admits to devs still clinging to version 8


Re: Customers? Who needs them?

The answer is even more sinister (this is Oracle we are talking about) it's about money and lawyers (OK so basically the same thing). If you go to Oracle's site to download the JDK or run times, you'll notice at least two things. First they only support downloads back a couple of versions, and two, their licensing changes are based on major version numbers. If they did the sensible thing and released Java 9.1, 9.2, 9.x it would be all the more obvious just what they are doing. Using major version numbers they can say, we only support the latest couple of versions (even though they are basically the same thing) _unless_ you purchase an expensive support contract with us. You can only down load the _current_ JRE/JDK, _unless_ you purchase an expensive support contract with us.

Oracle thinks that this is good for them as it drives people's perceptions of needing the current version and when they go to Oracle's website to download the JRE they can only get the latest version. Unfortunately, developers realize that; it's a lot of work rewriting working code, and if they are going to have to rewrite it for java 9+ they may as well switch to OpenJDK and avoid the whole Oracle licensing shell game.

What we are seeing is Oracle employees at Oracle panels upset that developers aren't following their master plan.

In hilariously petulant move, Apple shuts Texas stores and reopens them few miles down the road – for patent reasons


Re: Perhaps an empty gesture

Sorry, but except for a few specific cases, in the United States murder is a _state_ crime, not a federal one. So in your example the cop would be tried in state court. This is why the federal government will often try a murderer for denying the victim their civil rights (a federal crime) in order to try the individual in federal court. A needed tactic especially in the 1960's southern states, when it was almost impossible for a white defendant to be convicted for murdering a black victim.

OK, Google? Probably not! EU settles on wording for copyright reform legislation


Re: "cultural preservation uses" versus "a new mechanism on licensing on out-of-commerce works."

Copyright isn't a *right* it's a monopoly that was supposed to be granted by the government to a creator for a _limited_time_ to secure certain privileges to the creator. The purpose of this grant is to provide an incentive to enrich the *public* body of knowledge and art. If the public never gets to access it, it fails to serve it's purpose. If artists are creating lots of works without it, it is no longer needed.

Copyright was never intended as a *money_machine* for big industries to wring every last penny out of an artists work. If the artist didn't want anyone else to see/use their work, don't publish it.

You can not own an idea or a word or a tune, no more than you can own a flame or the air you breath. Nothing magical about that.


Re: "And Music doesn't?"

So, I guess terrestrial radio is a myth? Wow, what have I been listening to all my life? I seem to recall there was (no I think it might still exist, it did the last time I was in my automobooble) this device called a radio, tune into one of many stations, and hear songs, _whole_songs_. These are popular songs (if not good ones, kids these days) and I never had to purchase them. I can listen to my hearts content, for FREE. Not only that, history is rife with examples of studios actually PAYING radio stations to play certain songs (hint: google Payola).

I seem to also recall that people still went out and bought vinyl, then 8-track, cassettes, CDs, and back to vinyl (huh?). The problem isn't people listening for free, the problem is greed and control. Greed that there is _anyone_ else making money off of content but them and terror that artists now have a choice on how to get their art out there WITHOUT going through them.


Re: "BT can't be sued if you use your telephone to libel an MP"

BT Makes money getting you to subscribe to their telephony service (among other things). Volkswagen makes money selling you cars. And contrary to your myopic opinion, the purpose of You Tube is to gather statistics on your preferences and present you with ads. It does that _primarily_ by providing a platform for people to upload their own content. Most of the content hosted by You Tube is NOT content licensed by the major labels/studios. It's individual content. Many more artists can make a living using You Tube than were ever able to do so under the old system. It succeeds by being easy to use and garnering a large audience. Does that mean that some people may post infringing content? Sure, does that mean that every time some one uploads a video with some Prince song playing in the background it's infringing? Nope, there's even a famous court case involving a bouncing baby, a Prince snippet, and You Tube. Spoiler alert, it didn't go well for the studio.

Volkswagen cars aren't designed to kill, but it's very easy to kill people with them. BT phones aren't built to harass people with, but it's very easy to harass people with them. You Tube wasn't designed to exploit _illegal_content_, it's designed to let people share their own content, but yes you can upload someone elses content. Unfortunately, contrary to the opinion of the legacy industries, not every use is infringing (hint: fair-dealing).

Oh, and if you want to actually make any money with You Tube, you do have to let Google know who you are. Also, I guess you've never heard of a 'hit and run', or a 'burner phone' either.


Wishful thinking.

You write:

" I'm sure other companies would swoop in to fill any Googlevoid in Europe, so Alphabet simply aren't going to chance it."

But if someone with Google's deep pockets can't afford to play, what makes you think a smaller company will, even if they wanted to?


Who says they'll be giving up profit...

Google's already shown, in the case of Spain, that they have no problem pulling a service out of Europe if it costs them more to run it than it brings in. If running Search/You Tube/GMail in Europe is going to cost them a trillion dollars in licensing fees and STILL NOT PROTECT THEM from European liability, well there's always the rest of the world. You say 33% from Europe (soon to be minus GB) Middle East, and Africa. Even if that's correct, Google would still be getting revenue from GB, the Middle East and Africa.

Europe can have the internet lite otherwise known as Sky TV over the interwebs while the rest of the world moves on into the 21st century.


Wow, just wow.....

Are the content industry trolls out in force, or are Europeans (at least those who post here) just that numb?

First off, both of those changes (articles 11 & 13) would fundamentally change how the internet works in Europe. If it passes in it's current form it will transform the internet from a communications medium to a broadcast medium.

Presently anyone can post anything and the liability exists where it should with the user doing the posting, not the site hosting the content. Volkswagen isn't liable if you drive your beetle into a crowd of pedestrians, and BT can't be sued if you use your telephone to libel an MP. In the same way You Tube isn't liable if someone uploads a copy of a Hollywood movie, or theRegister isn't liable if someone libels you in their comments section. You sue the person who did the deed, not the person who made the tool (or in this case the platform).

Does Google have lots of money? Yep, there's no denying that. Does that mean they have to license ever bit of copywritten material in the universe in order to stream You Tube into Europe? It will if article 13 passes. That would effectively turn You Tube into Vevo (and we all know how well that worked out for Vevo). End users couldn't be allowed to upload content, just in case they managed to upload something that wasn't licensed properly. Of course it not just Google that would be effected. theRegister couldn't maintain this comments section that I am currently using to write this on the off chance that someone would post something that wasn't properly licensed. No site could. Snippets, memes, gossip, individual creative works, all gone.

Google's content ID is the closest thing that presently exists to an upload filter, and it sucks. It cost millions to build and still can't handle fair-dealing properly. It's regularly abused by haters and extortionists (some of whom are the large studios themselves).

If you are an artist and want to get your work out there, assuming you could find a site that was large enough to have all the relevant licensing in place, you would have to go through a record label/movie studio/publisher just like in the days before the internet. Otherwise how could you prove your content was licensed? Good bye to the days of an artist publishing their own content (on say You Tube), building up a fan base, and then making a decent living with their art. Can't get signed by a label? Too bad, I guess you'll have to go back to tending bar.

As for article 11; wasn't this already tried in both Spain and Germany? How did that work? And that was just for news. Imagine the problem if you tried to apply it to _every_thing_. How would you know where a link took you if you couldn't put a blurb on the link? Will all links in Europe need to be licensed to be legible? Perhaps we should just have pages of < a >1< / a >, < a >z< / a > etc. Uggg...

If you think either of those articles (11 or 13) are a good idea, then either you're a member of a legacy industry pining for the 'good ol days' or your ability to think critically is seriously impaired.

Google brews a fresh pot of Oracle's OpenJDK Java for future Android


FOU: Field of Use Restrictions was the original sticking point.

The historical problem, with Apache, the Free Software Foundation, and Google were the Field of Use restrictions on Java-SE.

While Sun, and then Oracle, were busy 'open sourcing' Java, they still required all 'licensed implementations' to pass a test suite, and that test suite contained Field Of Use restrictions, that prohibited the use of Java-SE anywhere but the desktop. This was doubly true of mobile as Sun/Oracle _licensed_ Java-ME (as in definitely _NOT_FREE_) for real money. It was one of the reasons behind the founding of Harmony and the reason Apache left the Java Community Process when Sun/Oracle refused to provide a FOU free license.

OpenJDK is licensed under GPL + classpath exemption, Harmony was licensed under the Apache license. There's a lot of speculation as to whether Google itself was wary of the GPL, or it feared phone manufactures would be. Straight Java-ME kinda sucked for mobile (really). Straight Java-SE also had it's issues, but was used by many more developers than Java-ME would ever be. So, Google based the development environment under a slightly modified Java-SE (the Apache licenced Harmony project) that compiled to run a on a custom mobile optimized VM, Dalvik. Since everyone (well all of the honest/sane people) understood that API's weren't copyrightable, and the rest was Apache licensed they were good to go.

Unfortunately, Oracle is well Oracle, Intellectual Property [ugg I hate that term] litigation in the U.S. of A. has gone completely off the rails, and Oracle convinced I.B.M. (the most major of the Harmony backers) to jump ship and support OpenJDK effectively shutting the project down. This leaves Google NotJava stuck in Java 6 land.

As long as Google wants to keep development in Java land, isn't afraid of GPLing their android 'contributions' and can get the needed changes into OpenJDK, it makes sense to switch over to OpenJDK. This will allow them to progress to later versions of Java (Java 8 anyone?). Putting an end to Oracle's litigation has to help as well.

Now if we can only get the rest of the ecosystem to fully support OpenJDK then maybe it'll get somewhat closer to the "write once, run anywhere" ideal and away from the current "write once, debug everywhere, kinda sorta run somewhere" world we live in now.

Why the 'Dancing Baby' copyright case is just hi-tech victim shaming


Wow..... how could you possibly have gotten things this wrong.


I can only imagine that you have no idea of the history or state of copyright in the United States, or you are being purposely disingenuous. I realize that you don't have an equivalent to the First Amendment over on your side of the pond so perhaps you really don't understand these things.

Because of the First Amendment, copyright is illegal. Yes, you read that correctly [go back and re-read it again if you want, I'll wait.]. Copyright is a restriction by the government on your right to expression (a.k.a. "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.."). Of course, the Constitution itself addresses copyright in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 ('The Copyright clause'):

“To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

Since the Bill of Rights, came after (technically) the constitution itself, normally the later would over ride the former so in case of conflict, the First Amendment wins. The Supreme Court has reconciled this with a liberal application of what's commonly known as 'Fair Use'. As the court correctly stated, to UMG's dismay, it's not a defense. If a use is considered 'fair' then that use, by definition, doesn't violate the rights granted to the copyright holder.

In the United States at least, there is no concept of 'moral rights of creators'. There is no reward for 'the sweat of the brow'. There is only the reservation of certain rights to the creators of a particular expression, not the ideas behind them, in certain situations, for a limited time (yea, that last one's something of an open joke at this point). Authors, publishers, creators have no right, god given or government bestowed, to make a profit nor to control all uses of their creations. Don't like it, too bad. The only other option is to do away with copyright entirely (probably for the best, but not currently up for discussion).

In the beginning, copyright was limited to certain classes of expression (and music wasn't originally one of them). It was limited to those things that a creator specifically registered (formalities). It was limited to a certain time (until the 1976 revision that was 28 years with the option to renew for another 14 years). For most of recorded time everyday people didn't have to think about copyright as it was very unlikely that it applied to them. Don't own a printing press, or a music publishing house? You couldn't infringe upon copyright. The exceedingly few cases where you might run up against copyright were almost always covered by 'fair use'. In fact, until the enactment of the No Electronic Theft Act (a.k.a. NET Act) in 1997, it was perfectly legal to share (download/upload) books, mp3 files, and movies or television shows as long as you weren't doing it commercially. This law was passed when record companies found out they couldn't sue, or have arrested, an individual sharing music files electronically.

Unfortunately copyright has been perverted from it's original form. Copyright has been mutated from a cute little gecko into a rabid Godzilla hopped up on PCP. Copyright is now applied to every utterance or stray thought that someone fixed into any sort of tangible medium (which in the internet age means pretty much everything). It lasts more than a century in most cases. Copyright holders (mostly corporations) believe that they have a government granted right to demand payment for any and all uses of any work that they believe they have rights to. This doesn't even include the individuals who abuse copyright as a mean to limit competition or censor content (the latter you seem to wholeheartedly endorse in your article).

In the modern era, copyright maximalists would have you believe that if you're not paying then, your violating their rights multiple times with nearly anything you do. You seem to be of the opinion that they are correct. That organizations such as the EFF have some semi secret agenda to collude with Silicon Valley corporations to convert innocent users into virtual share cropping slaves. Most people don't own enough aluminum foil to make that make sense. The solution isn't making licensing agreements easier to execute or more frictionless to apply. It's for copyright holders to get a clue and stop harassing creators. It's telling how you so easily you dismissed the rights of the actual creator when you wrote;

"Nor did the takedown cause any harm to Ms Lenz."

Sure it did, someone else removed her work when they had no legal right to do so. You seem so focused on the rights of UMG, which didn't actually create anything, and Google, which provided the forum where Ms Lenz could publish her work, that you give no thought to those people copyright was designed to encourage, you know the actual creators. You spend hundreds of words claiming EFF is working with tech companies to enslave creators in order to defend a publishing company's right to enslave creators. From where I sit, the only one thinking about the actual creators is the EFF.

Of course, having spent the last 50 years getting fat on selling/licensing other people's content, I can see why certain companies wouldn't want that gravy train to end. That doesn't make it right.

There is NO inherent property right in an expression. If anything copyright infringes in actual honest to god physical property rights. If I have bought a book, or a record, or a DVD, then I have an actual right to that property. I can shred it, burn it, play it, read it, give it to my dog. If I have a pile of blank pages, a hard drive, a DVD-R I have the right to write whatever words I want on that paper, rearrange the bits on that hard drive, burn whatever pattern of pits onto that DVD-R I want. I own it, I have the right to do what I want with my actual property. The only thing stopping me, the only thing infringing or abridging my property right is copyright. It says that I am not allowed to do what I want with something I own in (and this is important so pay attention) some cases.

So, copyright isn't sacred, not every use is covered by it, there is no such thing as a property right in an expression, and creators aren't entitled to be paid whenever a creation is used. Music publishers aren't creators and keeping them from extracting payments from grandmothers is a noble cause. If a theater opens it doors to whomever wants to perform and then chooses to charge advertisers put up ads on the walls (what Google is doing with YouTube) it doesn't make them modern day plantation owners and creators modern day share croppers (or slaves). Finally organizations like the EFF that choose to do pro bono work defending poor creators from corporations making questionable uses of the law to silence them isn't part of some great conspiracy with Silicon Valley.

Copyright was supposed to incentivize the creation of works for the public good. The way it's being used now just risks swallowing up our shared culture.

The Register Comments Guidelines


Reasons for rejection????

I haven't posted that often, and I rarely check on 'My Posts', but I was puzzled to see that two of my posts (one in 2011 and another in 2012) were rejected. Rereading them, I can't see why they might have been.

Is there any way, or plan, to find out why a post was rejected?

As the saying goes;

"If you don't tell me what I've done wrong, I'm liable to do it again, often and in public."


Linux Foundation wants open source projects to show you their steenking badges


Re: GPL == security?


GPL != security

but instead:

GPL == not getting sued by developers for telling people about bugs == more people willing to check software for vulnerabilities.

Firefox to speed up dev cycle, go multi-process, rip and replace UI – soon


Let's start with multiple simultaneous apps first .... please

Personally, if multiple processes are too hard to get right, at least give us the ability to run multiple copies of FireFox at the same time.

Start Firefox.

Start another copy of Firefox (currently it just redirects you to the running copy).

If FF0 crashes, FF1 is still up and running.

Other than managing shared access to the profile (yes I know you can currently run multiple copies at the same time via a command line hack using a different profile) it _should_ be much more straight forward than getting true multprocess FireFox (a.k.a. Electrolysis) sorted out.

Furor rages over ICANN and Facebook's bid to publish home addresses of website owners


Public WhoIs dates back to a simpler time.

The problem, of course, is that the public WHOIS database harkens back to a simpler time. A time when there were few servers, mostly government (including military), research labs, and academia. DNS predates the web as we know it (by quite a bit). Back then, servers weren't run by little Timmy, some social justice warrior, or grandma's blog on religious themed embroidery. They were run by actual systems administrators.

When servers did unexpected things, it was important to know who to contact. In some cases it was important to know that fairly quickly.

This is _nothing_ like the situation we find ourselves in today. The vast majority of domains today are for web sites. The vast majority of those domains _aren't_ managed by their owners. The content, yes, the actual servers, not so much. In that environment the reason for having publicly available contact data doesn't make any sense.

If "myMusicFromTheMan.org" blog starts DOSing the IRS.gov website, how does knowing that Mr. Tim I Am from London, UK is the registered domain owner help? Mr. Tim is using some web hosting service (say GoDaddy) to host his site. You would need to contact GoDaddy to get the server to stop doing that. Mr Tim may be all over how the RIAA/BPI et. al. are evil, but wouldn't know Apache from Jetty, from IIS.

Who having Mr. Tim I Am publicly listed _would_ help, would be; BPI, random trolls, and anyone who doesn't like his blog posting.

ICANN can require that the "technical contact" (a.k.a. the entity responsible for actually running the server(s)) be correct and public. But since that is rarely the owner, having a proxy contact should more than suffice for any _legitimately_ legal resons.

Oracle v Google round-up: The show so far


Re: Google didn't need a license & others have taken one either.

You should go back and reread the relevant licenses.

You only need a license if you want to call what you've created 'Java'.

The whole 'can't run it on mobile' thing you are referring to is in the Technology Compatibility Kit (TCK). You can only call what you've created Java if you license the TCK and pass all the tests. In the TCK is what's called the 'Field of Use' restriction. It's what says you can only run Java SE/EE on _non_mobile_ devices.

Apache's Harmony project wouldn't agree so they could never call Harmony "Java". Harmony has _no_ license from Sun/Oracle. Like Google, they don't need one.

Do you have anything to back up your expressed belief that:

" Your basic premise is wrong.

You do need a license.

At least to run on mobile appliances. "

Anything at all?

This post has been deleted by a moderator


Google didn't need a license & others have taken one either.

So much wrong in so few words.....

There is _no_ license required to build/use Java the language, nor Java the JVM. You _do_ have to acquire a license to the test suite (TCK) if you want to call your result 'Java' or Java compatible.

It's in the TCK that Sun (now Oracle) hid such nastiness as the dreaded Field Of Use (FOU) restrictions that among other things prevents you from running what you've built in the mobile space.

The Apache Foundation never accepted the FOU for the Harmony project. They never took a license from Sun, didn't need to. Still doesn't need to.

HP doesn't have a license for their ChaiVM or their MicrochaiVM implementations.

Google wrote their own VM Dalvik. It's _not_ a JVM. It can't run Java programs. Google wanted a programming language that many programmers already knew to write code for Android. The apparently went with Java_the_language. To be compatible with Java_the_language they based the language on Java as documented by the freely available API's. They started with the Apache licensed Harmony project and adjusted it to create code that they felt was more appropriate to mobile development and compiled to code that would run under their Dalvik VM. Dalvik byecode won't run under a Java VM and Java bytecode won't run under the Dalvik VM. The only part of Java that android uses is Java_the_language.

Most people, I would have said all but obviously Oracle doesn't agree, agree that you can't copyright a language. Courts in the US have already ruled that having a copyright on a system does _not_ give you any rights on a subsequent implementation of that system.[Baker v. Selden, 101 US 99 (1879)]. The only parts that are identical are those _required_ to be identical for compatibility. (Yes, I realize that there were a couple of cases of literal copying, but that's a different issue that the one here. Google's already removed them and they may face a small fine for that mistake.)

Oracle's stance is that since they literally own the copyright to the book the defines the Java API's that you need a license to implement any system that uses them. Unfortunately the courts have never actually ruled on the applicability of Copyright to API's. Up until this point no one ever thought that they needed to. It makes as much sense as having to get a license from Webster to use the English language simply due to the fact that they hold the copyright to an English dictionary.

Is a shame that Oracle's sunk so far.....


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019