Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Marcin Kasperski
1,361 followers -
for(; stillAlive; ++utc) { write_code(); blog(); play_chess(); read_books(); chat();}
for(; stillAlive; ++utc) { write_code(); blog(); play_chess(); read_books(); chat();}

1,361 followers
About
Communities and Collections
View all
Posts

Post has attachment
Wiedziałem! sport.pl jest robiony autotranslatorem!
Photo
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Rekrutacja jest przygodą.
Photo
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Wyrok w sprawie Oracle-vs-Google nawet daje się czytać: https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/13-1021/13-1021-2014-05-09.pdf Wcale nie jest takie „Google cacy, Oracle be”.

Wybiórczo wybranych parę fragmentów (w szczególności IMHO ważny jest ten z strony 50, który odcina tę sprawę od kwestii „zachowywania kompatybilności”, ktorej Google tak naprawdę wcale nie chciało):

(str 9)

Although Oracle owns the copyright on Java SE and the API packages, it
offers three different licenses to those who want to make use of them.
The first is the General Public License, which is free of charge and
provides that the licensee can use the packages — both the declaring and
implementing code — but must “contribute back” its innovations to the
public. This arrangement is referred to as an “open source” license.
The second option is the Specification License, which provides that the
licensee can use the declaring code and organization of Oracle’s API
packages but must write its own implementing code. The third option is
the Commercial License, which is for businesses that “want to use and
customize the full Java code in their commercial products and keep their
code secret.” Oracle offers the Commercial License in exchange for
royalties. To maintain Java’s “write once, run anywhere” motto, the
Specification and Commercial Licenses require that the licensees’
programs pass certain tests to ensure compatibility with the Java
platform.


(str 10-11)

in 2005 (…) Google and Sun began discussing the possibility of Google
“taking a license to use and to adapt the entire Java platform for
mobile devices.” They also discussed a “possible co-development
partnership deal with Sun under which Java technology would be come an
open-source part of the Android platform, adapted for mobile devices.”
The parties negotiated for months but were unable to reach an agreement.
The point of contention between the parties was Google’s refusal to make
the implementation of it s programs compatible with the Java virtual
machine or interoperable with other Java programs. Because Sun/Oracle
found that position to be anathema to the “write once, run anywhere”
philosophy, it did not grant Google a license to use the Java API
packages. When the parties’ negotiations reached an impasse, Google
decided to use the Java programming language to design its own virtual
machine — the Dalvik virtual machine —and “to write its own
implementations for the functions in the Java API that were key to
mobile devices.” Google developed the Android platform, which grew to
include 168 API packages — 37 of which correspond to the Java API
packages at issue in this appeal.

(…)

To achieve this result, Google copied the declaring source code from the
37 Java API packages verbatim, inserting that code into parts of its
Android software. (…) It is undisputed, however, that Google wrote its
own implementing code, except with respect to: (1) the rangeCheck
function, which consisted of nine lines of code; and (2) eight
decompiled security files.

As to rangeCheck , the court found that the Sun engineer who wrote it
later worked for Google and contributed two files he created containing
the rangeCheck function — “Timsort.java” and “ComparableTimsort” —to the
Android platform. In doing so, the nine-line rangeCheck function was
copied directly into Android. As to the eight decompiled files, the
district court found that they were copied and used as test files but
“never found their way into Android or any handset.”


(str 15)

it is also undisputed that Google could have written its own API
packages using the Java language. Google chose not to do that.
Instead, it is undisputed that Google copied 7,000 lines of declaring
code and generally replicated the overall structure, sequence, and
organization of Oracle’s 37 Java API packages. The central question
before us is whether these elements of the Java platform are entitled to
copyright protection. (…)

According to Google (…) (1) there was only one way to write the Java
method declarations and remain “interoperable” with Java; and (2) the
organization and structure of the 37 Java API packages is a “command
structure” excluded from copyright protection under Section 102(b).

(…)

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the declaring code and the
structure, sequence, and organization of the 37 Java API packages are
entitled to copyright protection.


(str 30)

Because it is undisputed that Google wrote its own implementing code,
the copyrightability of the precise language of that code is not at
issue on appeal. Instead, our focus is on the declaring code and
structure of the API packages.

(…) merger cannot bar copyright protection for any lines of declaring
source code unless Sun/Oracle had only one way, or a limited number of
ways, to write them. The evidence showed that Oracle had “unlimited
options as to the selection and arrangement of the 7000 lines Google
copied.” Using the district court’s “java.lang.Math.max” example,
Oracle explains that the developers could have called it any number of
things, including “Math.maximum” or “Arith.larger.” (…)
Of course, once Sun/Oracle created “java.lang.Math.max,” programmers who
want to use that particular package have to call it by that name. But,
as the court acknowledged, nothing prevented Google from writing its
own declaring code, along with its own implementing code, to achieve
the same result.

(str 43)

Oracle does not claim copyright in the idea of organizing functions of a
computer program or in the “package-class-method” organizational
structure in the abstract. Instead, Oracle claims copyright protection
only in its particular way of naming and organizing each of the 37 Java
API packages. Oracle recognizes, for example, that it “cannot copyright
the idea of programs that open an internet but “it can copyright the
precise strings of code used to do so, at least so long as ‘other
language is available’ to achieve the same function.”
Thus, Oracle concedes that Google and others could employ the Java
language —much like anyone could employ the English language to write a
paragraph without violating the copyrights of other English language
writers. And, that Google may employ the “package-class-method”
structure much like authors can employ the same rules of grammar chosen
by other authors without fear of infringement. What Oracle contends is
that, beyond that point, Google, like any author, is not permitted to
employ the precise phrasing or precise structure chosen by Oracle to
flesh out the substance of its packages —the details and arrangement of
the prose.

(…) Google could have structured Android differently and could have
chosen different ways to express and implement the functionality that it
copied. Specifically, (…) “the very same functionality could have been
offered in Android without duplicating the exact command structure used
in Java.” (…) Google could have offered the same functions in Android
by “rearranging the various methods under different groupings among the
various classes and packages.” The evidence showed, moreover, that
Google designed many of its own API packages from scratch, and , thus ,
could hav e designed its own corresponding 37 API packages if it wanted
to do so.

(str 50)

Google maintains on appeal that its use of the “Java class and method
names and declarations was ‘the only and essential means’ of achieving a
degree of interoperability with existing programs written in the Java
language.” Indeed, given the record evidence that Google designed
Android so that it would not be compatible with the Java platform , or
the JVM specifically, we find Google’s interoperability argument
confusing. While Google repeatedly cites to the district court’s
finding that Google had to copy the packages so that an app written in
Java could run on Android, it cites to no evidence in the record that
any such app exists and points to no Java apps that either predated or
postdated Android that could run on the Android platform.

The compatibility Google sought to foster was not with Oracle’s Java
platform or with the JVM central to that platform . Instead, Google
wanted to capitalize on the fact that software developers were already
trained and experienced in using the Java API packages at issue. The
district court agreed, finding that, as to the 37 Java API packages,
“Google believed Java application programmers would want to find the
same 37 sets of functionalities in the new Android system callable by
the same names as used in Java.”

Finally, to the extent Google suggests that it was entitled to copy
the Java API packages because they had become the effective industry
standard, we are unpersuaded. Google cites no authority for its
suggestion that copyrighted works lose protection when they become
popular, and we have found none.



O jaki kod chodzi?
-------------------

(przypisy na str 7-9)

The 37 API packages involved in this appeal are: java.awt.font,
java.beans, java.io, java.lang, java.lang.annotation, java.lang.ref,
java.lang.reflect, java.net, java.nio, java.nio.channels,
java.nio.channels.spi, java.nio.charset, java.nio.charset.spi,
java.security, java.security.acl, java.security.cert,
java.security.interfaces, java.security.spec, java.sql, java.text,
java.util, java.util.jar, java.util.logging, java.util.prefs,
java.util.regex, java.util.zip, javax.crypto, javax.crypto.interfaces,
javax.crypto.spec, javax.net, javax.net.ssl, javax.security.auth,
javax.security.auth.callback, javax.security.auth.login,
javax.security.auth.x500, javax.security.cert, and javax.sql.


Add a comment...

Wpisałem w google ^ (sam ten znaczek, nie mogłem sobie przypomnieć jego nazwy tj. słówka caret).

Wyskoczyło mi co trzeba … oraz gromadka piosenek disco polo z youtube.

Zastanawialem się dłuższy moment, w jaki sposób google mnie sprofilowało na te przeboje, nieco zdziwiony a nieco zaniepokojony.

Aż dopatrzyłem się że jednym z wyników (fakt że dalszym) była wikipedia dla „akcent”. Może i słusznie, ^ może być używany do oznaczenia akcentu.



Zespół śpiewający discopolo nazywa się „Akcent”.

Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
Ładnie gra na gitarze ta pani… Tu akurat jakieś dość stare wideo, są też nowsze bardziej wygładzone koncerty.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flYx0aymskM
Add a comment...

Post has attachment

Post has attachment

Dziwiła mnie zmiana nazwy z ładnego Agito na durne eMag ale rozumiem już że to miało być ostrzeżenie. Agito – chyba zawsze zamówienie w 1-3 dni u mnie. eMag – zamówienie z 30 listopada, ni widu, ni słychu…
Add a comment...

Post has attachment
O'Reilly przestało sprzedawać książki i ebooki. 3#%Q@$#%. To była moja zdecydowanie ulubiona księgarnia z technicznymi ebookami…

http://shop.oreilly.com/
Add a comment...
Wait while more posts are being loaded