Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
There have been a few proposals recently to abolish SIMs. They were created back in the days of rented carphones so that people could move their phone number and contacts between phones easily. Now, they basically serve the same purpose as a WiFi password. It wouldn't be too difficult to provide the keying material in a QR code or similar so that when you get a new phone you just photograph it and have an app provide it to the baseband processor.
Carriers are very hostile to this, because if the SIM isn't a physical device there's no constraint on the number that can exist in one phone - you could easily have an app that would select the best rate from a dozen or so pre-pay virtual sims for whatever country you happened to be in.
Headers and kernel linking are separate issues. The headers are definitely part of the documented public API.
Meanwhile, when the module system was built for the kernel, all of the modules were GPL and the question wasn't even considered. It's a bit of a special case, when it's Free software, what constitutes the public API? Linux clarifies that marking the function as _GPL makes it the public API in kernel space.
In non-Free software, non-public API is that which is not in the headers or that which no proper way to access it is provided. Effectively, "intent of author" has always been the standard, Linus just documents it a lot more clearly than others.
Oracle should lose. I simply can't see bare documentation of an API as a creative work and simply offering the same API is more akin to writing a distinct work in the same genre than it is to copyright violation. Otherwise, there could only ever be one detective novel (if you've seen one McGuffin, you've seen them all) and one space opera, etc. That is, nearly every environment has a read function that takes some sort of handle (generally returned by an open function), a size, and a destination. There's not many ways to express that in a header.
OK, no real technical data and some absurd claims here.
First all-digital transceiver? No. There have been others. Especially if you allow them to have a DAC and an ADC and no other components in the analog domain, but even without that, there are lots of IoT-class radios with direct-to-digital detectors and digital outputs directly to the antenna. You might have one in your car remote (mine is two-way).
And they have to use patented algorithms? Everybody else can get along with well-known technology old enough that any applicable patents are long expired.
It would be nicer if there was some information about what they are actually doing. If they really have patented it, there's no reason to hold back.
The thing is, there are so many consequences for being the first to go nuclear it actually detracts from the threat.
OTOH, big deck guns can pound away for days for less than the cost of a single missile.
The continuous nature of it wears on the enemy in the way a single missile doesn't.
Yes, I made factual claims ABOUT THE DIAGRAM.
I have no opinion on the facts of the situation. I only know what the diagram clearly claims.
And according to the diagram, parts of the linux kernel are incorporated INTO the hypervisor. That, I imagine, is what has lead to a legal dispute.
The diagram remains clear. It shows what I said it does. Your question is more about if the diagram shows reality or not.
I note though that the Linux kernel is at the bare metal level itself.
Actually, he said the same thing I said, in different words.
For example, he points out that using the defined API, such as system calls is not a derived work, but digging into the internals is.
If it's a non issue, they should release the modified source and be done with it. They've had 3 years to do so and flatly refuse, so the law suit.
I'm just waiting for the first computer virus that makes the user sick. M.D.s will have to get used to diagnosing patients with a bout of BarfOrama 2.6.
But then they MUST offer the modified source to anyone they distribute a binary to. They also get to field all of the support issues since the kernel maintainers won't touch a bug report if the kernel is tainted by a non-free module (for good reason).
That's more akin to extradition. You broke a N.J. law while in N.J.
And he spent significant time in foreign jail far from home anyway. Far too much time considering that the charges were obviously inappropriate.