Submission Summary: 0 pending, 6 declined, 0 accepted (6 total, 0.00% accepted)
anshulajain (1359933) writes "Oracle has sued Google over alleged patent and copyright violations over Google's clean room implementation of Java called Davlik. More coverage at:- http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9180678/Oracle_sues_Google_over_Java_use_in_Android & http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67B5G720100813"
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
anshulajain writes "Is Goldman linking OSS (GPL*) to its proprietary software? NY Times has an interesting story about an ex-Goldman employee who was the head of its High Freqency Trading Unit (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/business/24trading.html?_r=1&hp). The ex-employee happens to be a software engineer who is alleged to have stolen the "crown jewels" of Goldman's trading business. The real stuff of interest lies in the first 2 paragraphs of the 2nd page (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/business/24trading.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp). In this paragraph, it seems like the ex-employee was getting OSS and he inadvertently downloaded the proprietary parts. The questions are:- 1. Is Goldman linking GPL* or any OSS Licensed code against Proprietary code 2. Has Goldman ever released the sources of the GPLed portions of their software?"
anshulajain (1359933) writes "The brawl of the century is upon us- Microsoft v/s Google. Google has just announced plans for a Google Chrome OS. It was announced in Google's Blog at
:- http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/introducing-google-chrome-os.html. More coverage at:- http://www.pcworld.com/article/168028/google_announces_chrome_os.html & http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10281744-2.html. What's that breaking noise I hear? Oh thats Steve Ballmer throwing *all* of his chairs out of the window :)"
anshulajain (1359933) writes "Tuxmachines is reporting that Microsoft has given a Community Pledge on not to sue implementations of C# on Open Platforms. The Microsoft pledge is *not* on the official Interop site (http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx), but in a blog at
:- http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx. Understandably, Miguel De Icaza is jumping with joy at :- http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2009/Jul-06.html. The bigger question is that does it promise not to sue customers, *if* the implementation is from Novell only? Or can any individu al implement and distribute it? Also, it seems that RMS along with the skeptical FOSS community were right with regards to the "unencumbered" nature of Mono. To quote Icaza:- "In the next few months we will be working towards splitting the jumbo Mono source code that includes ECMA + A lot more into two separate source code distributions. One will be ECMA, the other will contain our implementation of ASP.NET, ADO.NET, Winforms and others. ". So there's gonna be 2 forks of Mono/C#, one is the ECMA-compliant fork and the other is a reverse-engineered Mono fork. So, Icaza seems to agree that some portions of his pet project *was* encumbered, yet he chose to claim that it wasn't."
anshulajain writes "Is Mandriva bundling Mono on KDE4 (and other DEs), by tagging Mono with Openoffice.org? Check out this thread on the Mandriva Forums (http://forum.mandriva.com/viewtopic.php?t=93002) and the bugzilla entries https://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=43484, https://qa.mandriva.com/show_bug.cgi?id=43494. Apparently, removing Mono on KDE4 removes the entire KDE desktop!! One would've assumed Opensuse to pull this underhanded trick with their KDE, but it seems like Mandriva's beating them to it!"