Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions.
Posted Mar 21, 2011 11:48 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller
In reply to: Naughton didn't do enough research to justify his conclusions.
Parent article: Has Bionic stepped over the GPL line?
1. we are not talking about random code files, but a very special case.
How will you separate this special case from other cases of copyright laundering? Are you sure Google hasn't already done this in other cases, too?Are you sure nobody else has done or will now consider doing this, following Google's example?
2. it has become apparent that the elements copied are NOT subject to copyright.
How come that neither Eben Moglen in his answer to ZDNet nor Brad Kuhn in his blog post nor LWN (on this very page) rule out the possibility of an infringement? Apparently what you think is not apparent.
3. It's fine and in the spirit of what the authors meant, and probably the GPL too, but the first part should be more than enough.
This is a totally unsupported claim of yours.
Your position is very, very weak. You can only argue about legal subtleties, and even there you're not in firm ground.
Unfortunately, such "legal subtleties" can be outcome-determinative. I don't claim that I know 100% for sure that there is an infringement. I read Edward Naughton's paper and I think he has a reasonable basis for raising concerns. I'd love to see Google take care of those concerns by replacing those headers with glibc.
Why do you insist in spreading the FUD?
The word FUD is wrong here for various reasons. I'll name two. One, as the aforementioned, non-committal positions by Eben Moglen, Brad Kuhn and LWN show, there is a lack of certainty out there. So it's not like FUD in the sense of artificially creating or suggesting uncertainty. Two, I don't say that this is the end of Android. I believe a fix is doable, and it's imperative. The sooner it's done, the better. The easier it is to do, the better. But it must be done.
to post comments)