web-archive-it.com » IT » C » CONECTA.IT

Total: 359

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • 13 « August « 2010 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    all Dalvik is not Java and Google never claimed any form of Java compatibility Second there is a protection for patents as well just hidden in recent history On the first point in the complaint Oracle claims that The Android operating system software stack consists of Java applications running on a Java based object oriented application framework and core libraries running on a Dalvik virtual machine VM that features just in time JIT compilation On copyrights Oracle claims that Without consent authorization approval or license Google knowingly willingly and unlawfully copied prepared published and distributed Oracle America s copyrighted work portions thereof or derivative works and continues to do so Google s Android infringes Oracle America s copyrights in Java and Google is not licensed to do so users of Android including device manufacturers must obtain and use copyrightable portions of the Java platform or works derived therefrom to manufacture and use functioning Android devices Such use is not licensed Google has thus induced caused and materially contributed to the infringing acts of others by encouraging inducing allowing and assisting others to use copy and distribute Oracle America s copyrightable works and works derived therefrom Well it is wrong Wrong because Google did not copied Java and actually never mention Java anywhere In fact the Android SDK produced Dalvik not Java bytecodes and the decoding and execution pattern is quite different and one of the reasons why older implementations of Dalvik were so slow they were made to conserve memory bandwidth that is quite limited in cell phone chipsets The thing that Google did was to copy or for a better word inspire the Java language but as the recent SAS vs WPS lawsuit found copyright in computer programs does not protect programming languages from being copied So unless Oracle can find pieces of documentation that were verbatim lifted from the Sun one I believe that the copyright part is quite weak As for patents a little reminder while copyright covers specific representations a page of source code an Harry Potter book a music composition software patents cover implementations of ideas and if the patent is broad enough all possible implementation of an algorithm let s skip for the moment the folly of giving monopoly protection on ideas You already know how I think about it so if in any way Oracle had now or in the past given full access to those patents through a licensing that is transferable Google is somehow protected there as well And guess what That really happened Sun released the entire Java JDK under the GPLv2 classpath exception granting with that release full rights of use and redistribution of the IPR assigned on what was released This is different from the TCK specification that Google wisely never licensed because the TCK license requires for the patents to be transferred to limit the development to enhancements or modifications to the basic JDK as released by Sun But you would say Dalvik is independent from OpenJDK

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2010/08/13/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 15 « August « 2010 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    opportunistic I am not implying any negative connotation simply the observation that Oracle dabbled in open source whenever there was an opportunity to reduce its own research and development costs If you look at oracle projects it is clear that all projects are related to infrastructural functionality for the Oracle run time and for developers tools using Eclipse as a basis I was not able to find any intrinsic open source project started or adopted by Oracle that was not focused on this approach So for those projects I believe that there will be no difference for example I believe that the activity on the Oracle sponsored BTRFS project will not change significantly Oracle actually does not care at all if they are seen as enemies or if their projects are not used anymore by others What they care for is for their patches to be included in Linux Remember that Oracle is an old style company it does have two basic product lines its database and its set of enterprise applications Everything else is not quite necessary and probably will be abandoned Sun OSS projects as for Sun there is a long preamble first Sun has always been first and foremost an engineering company something like Silicon Graphics in the past or more recently Google Sun had open sourced something of value whenever it was necessary to establish a common platform or protocol like NFS or NIS but it was the advent of Jonathan Schwartz that actually turned things towards open source The ponytailed CEO tried to turn the Sun behemoth towards a fully open strategy but was unable to manage the conversion before being ousted out It is a pity actually Sun could have leveraged its size large number of technical partners and amount of technologies to become a platform provider like RedHat but 10 times larger The problem of this strategy is that it implies a large amount of cooperative development and thus a substantial downsizing of the company itself The alternative could have been the use of an open core like strategy for example creating a scalable JVM designed to auto partition code execution on network of computers The basic JVM could have been dual licensed with the enhanced one released on a proprietary basis this could have leveraged the exceptional Sun expertise in grid and parallel computing filesystems and introspection systems But Sun never managed to complete the path it dwindled left and right with lots of subprojects that were started and abandoned The embracing of PostgreSQL its later abandonment the latter embrace of MySQL that was then not integrated anywhere the creation of substantial OSS projects from their proprietary offering but then losing interest as soon as a project started to become a threat for the proprietary edition There is no surprise that despite the incredible potential Sun never recouped much of their OSS investment despite the great growth in their latest quarters the OSS services remained a small portion of their revenues Now

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2010/08/15/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 18 « August « 2010 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    and adaptation to each Public Administration need It is the result of the open sourcing of parts of the Conecta HealthDesk system designed using the result of our past European projects COSPA a large migration experiment for European Public Administrations SPIRIT open source health care OpenTTT OSS technology transfer and CALIBRE open source for industrial environments There are more than 120 changes from the previous edition among them all the medical applications are integrated in the same image so there is no need to have a separate edition for Health Care applications Among the updates Latest edition of the DICOM browser for hospitals and medical applications now supports per user monitor calibration Integrated medical dictionary in OpenOffice org Integrated the After the Deadline OpenOffice grammar checker LikeWise 6 Active directory integration tool A fast efficient and very capable RDP NX and VNC connection manager Remmina based on FreeRDP The latest VirtualBox Several ancillary additions like a large complement of fonts To facilitate the final bug fixing we made the boot process visible that will be reverted to silent boot as soon as the final testing is completed As usual you will find the images at our sourceforge page EveryDesk open

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2010/08/18/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 19 « August « 2010 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    ideas and initiatives in these areas At the hub of the Free Open Source revolution the event was first staged in 2008 and takes place every year in Paris with more than 140 speakers from 40 countries a 1 500 strong international audience and numerous conferences workshops and think tanks The 2010 Open World Forum will be held on 30 September and 1 October under the banner of Open is the future Open Innovation Open Enterprise Open Society Organized by a unique network of partners including the main Free Open Source communities and most of the leading IT players worldwide the Open World Forum is a must attend event to discover the latest trends in open technology business and social issues and to explore the future of Free Open Source initiatives It also offers a unique opportunity to share insights and best practices with many of the most respected visionaries entrepreneurs and community leaders and network with technology gurus CxOs analysts CIOs researchers government leaders and investors from six continents To request an invitation please visit http www openworldforum org conferences open source No Comments You are currently browsing the archives for Thursday August 19th 2010 blog divertissements EveryDesk OSS

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2010/08/19/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • 25 « August « 2010 « carlodaffara.conecta.it
    a greater probability of contribution So if you are creating a nonmarket entity and you are free to choose choose non copyleft licenses In the other situations it is not so simple and it may even be difficult to avoid previous licensing requirements The point on intermediate releasers require some additional consideration An especially important point of OSS licenses is related to embedded IPR that is the relationship of the code released with software patents that may be held by the releasing authority While the debate on software patents is still not entirely settled with most OSS companies vigorously fighting the process of patenting software based innovations while on the other hand large software companies defending the practice for example SAP most open source licenses explicitly mention the fact that software patents held by the releasing authority are implicitly licensed for use with the code This means that business practices that rely on separate patent licensing may be incompatible with some specific OSS licenses in particular the Apache License and the GPL family of licenses The Eclipse Public License gives patent grants to the original work and to enhanced versions based on the original work but not to code not directly derived from the release while permissive licenses like BSD and MIT give no patent rights at all If for compatibility or derivation a license that gives explicitly IPR rights must be selected and the company or research organization wants to maintain the rights to use IPR in a license incompatible way a possible solution may be the use of an intermediate releaser that is an entity that has no IPR on its own to which the releasing organization gives a copy of the source code for further publication Since the intermediate release has no IPR the license clauses that require patent grants are not activated while the code is published with the required license this approach has been used for example by Microsoft for some of its contributions to the Apache POI project This may become an important point of attention for companies that are interested in releasing source code under an OSS license most software houses are still interested in maintaining their portfolio of patents and are not willing to risk invalidation through accidental licensing of IPR embedded in source code one of the reasons why Microsoft will never sell a Linux based system As I wrote in the beginning there is for a large number of consortia a clear preference for non copyleft licenses but it is not possible to generalize the panorama of OSS is so complex right now that even doing predictions is difficult FLOSS open source OSS adoption OSS business models OSS licenses 4 Comments Oracle Sun Java lawsuits mark the exit road Posted by cdaffara in blog divertissements on August 25th 2010 I already wrote a few words on the Oracle Google lawsuits here and here and I would like to thank all those that found them interesting enough to read and comment

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/2010/08/25/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • About contributions, Canonical and adopters « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    one measures as for OpenOffice there are more contributors in non code parts than in code there is also a substantial effort in creating a product out of contributions And Ubuntu certainly invested in product engineering marketing even engineering less than Red Hat So what Large IT consulting companies are getting paid millions for open source based systems and I never saw a contribution at all When Matt Asay claims that bringing Ubuntu to million of people is a contribution he is claiming an absolute truth every time Canonical manages to bring a press release out it is making a huge contribution Maybe less code than others but this is not a beauty contest this is a cooperative effort for building a better future not a race to see who is the nicest or worked harder It is true that Canonical I hope profits from OSS well it is one of the most important thing for OSS as it demonstrates that OSS is sustainable that people can live off OSS services and products all the while improving our world I repeat maybe someone at Red Hat is not happy of the visibility of Canonical given all the contributions they do I am sorry and I am quite happy to show at all my talks that Red Hat is an incredibly good and well managed company that has open sourced all the proprietary products it acquired and invests an incredible amount of effort in engineering in the open I like them a lot no I don t work for them and never did use one of their services but I like Canonical as well because they are investing heavily in the desktop market a market that is not the focus of Red Hat any more and that I believe is quite

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/about-contributions-canonical-and-adopters/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • On WebM, H264, and FFmpeg implementation « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    most of FFMPEG actually So to end up this brief post the existence of a parallel implementation of libvpx is a good thing the fact that it shares lots of code with FFMPEG is no proof of IPR infringement but on the other hand it is probably safer to use the libvpx one from Google as it seems that it was developed explicitly to avoid existing IPR issues libvpx open source webm This entry was posted on Tuesday July 6th 2010 2 02 pm and is filed under blog divertissements You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2 0 You can leave a response or trackback from your own site Comments 2 Trackbacks 2 1 by Ronald S Bultje July 6th 2010 at 14 52 What the hell I said H 264 and VP8 are technologically similar and that s all I said I am no lawyer and have no interest in patents nor in patent fights I maintain my opinion that H 264 and VP8 are technologically very similar and you re free to argue me on that Quote 2 by cdaffara July 6th 2010 at 16 40 Ronald I actually was referring to the long stream of comments on slashdot and in fact I was not commenting on your implementation at all I also not debating the fact that H264 and VP8 are similar as are VP8 and MPEG4 baseline or many other DCT based codecs I will quote from one of the comments The question is Does VP8 include technology methods covered by patents contributed to the MPEG LA H 264 patent pool The fact that a huge amount of H 264 related code could be reused in their VP8 decoder strongly suggests that at minimum VP8 and H 264 are very similar and

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/on-webm-h264-and-ffmpeg-implementation/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive

  • libvpx « carlodaffara.conecta.itcarlodaffara.conecta.it
    this is however no indication of patent infringement What is certain is the fact that I suspect that libVPX Google implementation will remain the official one because there is no guarantee that in the alternative implementation the current IPR safeguards and efforts to avoid existing patents will be done properly In fact some of the obvious missing optimizations both in the decoder and encoder are clearly done to avoid patents and this means that Google can be reasonably sure of being safe from IPR claims for the current code drop If a FFMPEG developer implements some optimization especially in the encoder that actually implements a claimed part of a current patent you can end up with a freely implemented source code that implements an IPR covered claim like most of FFMPEG actually So to end up this brief post the existence of a parallel implementation of libvpx is a good thing the fact that it shares lots of code with FFMPEG is no proof of IPR infringement but on the other hand it is probably safer to use the libvpx one from Google as it seems that it was developed explicitly to avoid existing IPR issues libvpx open source webm

    Original URL path: http://carlodaffara.conecta.it/tag/libvpx/index.html (2016-02-18)
    Open archived version from archive