Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:So Android 3.0 ... (Score 3, Informative) 262

well, you only have to "make it available"

You have to do more than "make it available". Since it is being commercially distributed, and isn't accompanied with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, they need to satisfy section 3b of the GPLv2:

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;

Can anyone who has a Xoom confirm whether it came with such a written offer?

As others have pointed out, this only applies to any GPL'd components of the software, which includes the Linux kernel but little else.

Comment Re:1960s archives (Score 1) 498

I've got 800bip nine-track tapes from a PDP-10 system from 1969. They're still readable on an HP 88780A SCSI tape drive. There are text files from 1968. The text is all in ASCII, though it's the 1963 standard, which has up-arrow and left-arrow in place of caret and underscore of the 1967 and later standards.

Comment Re:HTC Sense vs Stock Android (Score 1) 165

Having tried Sense on the EVO, and stock Android 2.1 and 2.2 on the Nexus One, I *much* prefer stock Android. HTC, how about giving us an option to completely disable Sense, without having to install third-party firmware builds? On the EVO you can sort of partially disable Sense, but apparently on many other HTC phones you can't even do that.

Comment Open source (Score 3, Insightful) 357

They only give the source to paying customers. But do they prevent those paying customers from redistributing the source? If not, then it really is open source. Nothing about open source requires that owner of the code give it out to everyone, but if there are restrictions on redistribution, it's not open source.

Comment Re:Where's the petition for to praise the decision (Score 1) 282

If the D-STAR transmissions are not intentionally obfuscated, then the parties responsible for manufacturing the D-STAR equipment should be perfectly willing to explain to me how I can decode the transmissions, in sufficient detail that I could myself decode the transmissions. Since they are unwilling to explain that information, it is obvious that the transmissions are in fact obfuscated.

The fact that they will happily sell equipment to decode the transmissions does NOT negate the fact that the transmissions are obfuscated.

Comment Where's the petition for to praise the decision? (Score 4, Interesting) 282

Some of us licensed hams think that allowing a proprietary protocol/codec on the amateur bands is a crock of shit. Where's the petition to praise the decision? (I'm licensed, but I'm not in the EU.)

In the US, I would argue that using D-Star on amateur radio is already illegal, under Title 47 part 97(a)(4). Since the codec is proprietary, and documentation on the encoded format is not available, the use of the code is clearly an attempt to obscure the meaning of the communication from anyone that doesn't buy D-Star equipment that contains the proprietary codec.

Eric Smith
N2ES

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (2) Thank you for your generous donation, Mr. Wirth.

Working...