|
CommieGIR posted:Then you probably need to rethink Open Source entirely. Because nobody charges you a license fee for using Python, Ruby, Java, etc. No, they'll just come knocking if you start developing a version of Java for non-standard computing environment (like embedded or mobile devices) because they don't extend the general license to those cases.
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 23:13 |
|
|
exploding mummy posted:No, they'll just come knocking if you start developing a version of Java for non-standard computing environment (like embedded or mobile devices) because they don't extend the general license to those cases. quote:This is complex, but the reasons are broadly: We can nitpick about this all night. There's nothing for Oracle to claim.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 05:07
|
|
|
exploding mummy posted:No, they'll just come knocking if you start developing a version of Java for non-standard computing environment (like embedded or mobile devices) because they don't extend the general license to those cases. All I see under GPL exceptions is class path and thats just makes OpenJDK "freer" not less free.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
I can only imagine the shitfest if companies were able to take Open Source languages and start hunting down projects that implemented them on non-PC setups for licensing. It would be the death knell for FOSS and GPL.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
exploding mummy posted:Just because something is open source doesn't mean that it can't be licensed for a fee for commercial usage. You generally pay for commercial support, not usage. These are very different things.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Edit: A bunch of people apparently don't realize Dual Licensing is a thing.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:You generally pay for commercial support, not usage. These are very different things. Most open source projects can be licensed for closed source commercial usage by paying the author.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Most open source projects can be licensed for closed source commercial usage by paying the author. I would not say that applies to "most" or even "many" open source projects. Dual licensing is not extraordinarily common and the use case where you building a bespoke distribution fork of an open source project is way less common than plain OTS usage. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but hesitate to offer it as a "common" use case when compared to overall FOSS usage and commercial support use case. Edit: I mean, I am perfectly willing to be wrong, as I don't have a way to objectively measure this.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Please make a new thread for your dumb Oracle/Google derail since it has gently caress all to do with the SCOTUS.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 07:24
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Which nobody is talking about because they're out of the case. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 13:42
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Most open source projects can be licensed for closed source commercial usage by paying the author. "Most" is a pretty bold claim. It's quite uncommon for that to be the business model for a project (and quite uncommon for projects to have business models). I think most open source can be used in closed source commercial products anyway, but I haven't seen a recent license census. GPL/copyleft are the exception these days, not the rule.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:If the case is going to land in front of the motherfucking CAFC again then I think we can keep referring to it as a patent case No, because half of CAFC's workload has nothing to do with patents. Like this case.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Please make a new thread for your dumb Oracle/Google derail since it has gently caress all to do with the SCOTUS. No seriously do this.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, because half of CAFC's workload has nothing to do with patents. The appeal only went to the Federal Circuit because the original case had patent claims, as the Federal Circuit notes in their opinion. quote:Because this action included patent claims, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:And yet, it remains in the SCOTUS thread. It would be really nice if people created a thread to argue about Oracle in instead of making this thread useless for following actual SCOTUS news.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
My fault, sorry guys 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
ulmont posted:The appeal only went to the Federal Circuit because the original case had patent claims, as the Federal Circuit notes in their opinion. They also note "The jury found no patent infringement, and the patent claims are not at issue in this appeal."
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Kalman posted:They also note "The jury found no patent infringement, and the patent claims are not at issue in this appeal."
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Please make a new thread for your dumb Oracle/Google derail since it has gently caress all to do with the SCOTUS. Please
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Please make a new thread for your dumb Oracle/Google derail since it has gently caress all to do with the SCOTUS. Oh God yes please
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Does this basically mean you can assert any bogus patent claim whatsoever if you think the federal circuit is a more friendly venue for other claims? Is there anything stopping that?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:Does this basically mean you can assert any bogus patent claim whatsoever if you think the federal circuit is a more friendly venue for other claims? Is there anything stopping that? Federal rule 11.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
The Google/Oracle shenanigans are definitely worth their own thread and should be out of this one. Please. Please.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Here I made you guys a thread, please talk about oracle/google there http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3778215
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the font in BYOB is cruel and unusual punishment
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:I'm pretty sure the font in BYOB is cruel and unusual punishment that's debatable 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
alnilam posted:Here I made you guys a thread, please talk about oracle/google there It's even stickied now, BYOB is very excited for our new visitors, and also I think you'll find more smart and thoughtful people there than you might realize.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
alnilam posted:It's even stickied now, BYOB is very excited for our new visitors, and also I think you'll find more smart and thoughtful people there than you might realize. byob s pretty chill about everything, just roll up and post whatever, its all good 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/737645869751775232 https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/737646039050637312
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Judicial branch rules that the judicial branch can review something. That activist judge Marshall's legacy continues! 
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
8 0 decisions are hard to get mad at, usually.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Judicial branch rules that the judicial branch can review something. That activist judge Marshall's legacy continues! Somewhat unusual lineup for a nominally 8-0 decision (4 total opinions): quote:ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, THOMAS, BREYER, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. KENNEDY, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a concurring opinion. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Slate Action posted:https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/737645869751775232 Welp. Was nice knowing you Earth.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
All they did is say that the army corps of engineers is a government agency subject to the same APA rules as any other agency. Seems pretty straightforward.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Would this potentially increase the number of litigation-based blockages brought against the EPA by toxic states? It seems like it's just a procedural "yeah, it can be brought to court" thing that wouldn't affect the rate at which places like NC can try to halt proposals with lawsuits since that already happens all the time.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
The EPA is already covered by the APA. This just clarifies that Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional determinations are final agency decisions that fall under the APA. This allows an appeal up front instead of filing suit when the government begins an enforcement action.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The EPA is already covered by the APA. This just clarifies that Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional determinations are final agency decisions that fall under the APA. This allows an appeal up front instead of filing suit when the government begins an enforcement action. Ahh well, bummer. It seems that's a bit of a blow to the environment, since the ACE is involved with a ton of water-related infrastructure all over - dams, levees, various waterway management operations. It's nice to see that it was decided with 8-0 clarity but I'm more than a little worried about the ramifications of being able to forestall enforcement based on what-if theories of injury.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
This isn't something that's going to break the system. Basically before this decision, if you wanted to challenge whether the corps was correct in their wetlands determination you would either have to go through an arduous permitting process or proceed without a permit and battle during the subsequent enforcement action.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:This isn't something that's going to break the system. Basically before this decision, if you wanted to challenge whether the corps was correct in their wetlands determination you would either have to go through an arduous permitting process or proceed without a permit and battle during the subsequent enforcement action. Given that you can already challenge EPA actions in this way, it definitely isn't going to break the system - this decision seems to be pretty narrow and focused on ACE actions only.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 23:13 |
|
|
Kalman posted:Given that you can already challenge EPA actions in this way, it definitely isn't going to break the system - this decision seems to be pretty narrow and focused on ACE actions only. Exactly. This changes very little in the grand scheme of things.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2016 20:56
|
|