The end result will most probably violate the GPL. However, this is only realized by each user; you could probably argue that you never test your software and only look at API documentation.
And then it becomes a problem of proving your users violating the GPL. So you'd have to go after each one of them, which will be incredibly difficult, and proving damages would be even more difficult.
It's an asshole way of exploiting "Wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter" (where's no plaintiff, there's no judge) since actually proving that the developers violated the GPL will be difficult, unless they have a CI system that readily documents this.
Yes, all of the above is on the condition that some distribution happened (and you can prove that).
However, distribution also happens in places you might not expect. As a business, I'd stray far away from such constructs even if I only use this construct internally.
However, this is purely based on the wording of the GPL. For example, the EUPL explicitly covers the creation of derivative works - and I'd argue that the proposed circumvention would create a derivative work.
Yeah, the crux of the issue would definitely be whether use of an API is prohibited by default under copyright law for a country (i.e. does using a library make something a derivative work of the library). In the US, at least, the Google v Oracle case makes me think this is worst case fair use (for many contexts) and best case too functional to be covered by copyright in the first place.
Though I can certainly imagine that a multinational company might not be confident of the copyright status of API usage in all countries they operate in.
I'd further argue that it would be important if your program does anything useful without the GPL parts; if so, you can probably argue that it is not a derivative work. If you however only build an extension to some GPL'ed software that fundamentally needs the GPL'ed code to properly function and cannot (easily) be used by any other software, then you probably will create a derivative work.
Copyright in Europe fundamentally does not work like Copyright in US. More precisely, the law does not govern the monetary gains possible from copying but rather the author's artistical expression in the work. Which is kind of moot regarding source code, but, it makes for an important decision: author's rights are created automatically and you cannot transfer them under any circumstances whatsoever.
Per default, the law states that the author retains all rights. They can license it, e.g. to their employer, exclusively; The employer can then sublicense that. However what licenses are possible is exhaustively defined in the law; on an abstract basis at least (e.g. using, creating derivative works, ...). It has been not exactly clear if conditions evoked on a license still have their roots in these licensable acts, or if they are based on contract law - where literally anything goes as long as it's not against the law or immoral.
Both can be enforced. However, I'd argue that it is good that it was decided that this is a copyright law matter, because this gives authors _much_ more protection than contract law, where all circumstances need to be evaluated for each single case and rulings might as well contradict each other.
> However, I'd argue that it is good that it was decided that this is a copyright law matter, because this gives authors _much_ more protection than contract law
Copyright law may give the authors more power; but unfortunately, experience teaches us that there's usually not much incentive for the authors to enforce their rights. (The case in TFA is an exception, since the author profits directly from dual-licensing.).
For this reason, the SFC has been trying to get the courts to also see it as a contract; and specifically, one in which all other possible users of the software are beneficiaries. This gives random third-parties standing to sue for damages. If it works, it means that the SFC (for example) could go around suing companies which violate the GPL without needing involvement from the original copyright holders.
I'm not entirely sure if this is even possible the way copyright in the EU works today. Be that as it may, at least from my perspective what really prohibits me from actually enforcing GPL on my software is funding. I rarely go beyond sending a stern letter, because anything more would be financial suicide in most cases; I might win but it is incredibly hard to prove damages. Punitive damages don't really exist in the EU (or, to be more precise, in the roman-german law system), at least not to the exterme seen in common law systems.
At least in my case, I'd fight tooth and nail for my software, if I don't have to bear the financial risk.
I was simplyfying. What I described is unified in the European Union; however, the outlined distinction is common across the roman-germanic law system whereas the US copyright interpretation is rooted in common law. In Europe, the only countries using common law are UK and Ireland. And while Ireland has mostly unified their copyright law with the rest of the european union, you still see some roots in common law. For example, it is possible that an irish company (a legal person) can become an author of a work, which is impossible under e.g. german law.
And yes: in a common law system, copyright governs literally "the right to copy", which is transferable. In other law systems (which is the distinction I made) the law governs the property rights of the author's expression, which is non-transferrable, you can only license the rights you have.
Trademark law always hinges on the question if a reasonable consumer with reasonable knowledge could be expected to distinguish those trademarks or not.
HDMIY would most probably not fly, HDIY would probably.
not yet a lawyer, though.
edit: I'm also fairly certain that the HDMI forum would fight HDIY tooth and nail, so whoever goes public with that absolutely needs deep pockets.
I like how they fail to mention that the Apple Music App on Windows is hot garbage riddled with bugs. A few weeks ago they broke reordering of upcoming songs, the "play next" feature and I don't know what else.
I have submitted bug reports with exact steps, reproducible on at least two accounts on five different conmputers. Haven't heared back, doubt I'll ever will.
Anyone can recommend a streaming service that isn't Apple Music, Spotify or YouTube Music? Bonus points if I can just add a plugin to my old trusty winamp to use it.
Cider[0] is a client I've seen for Apple Music. It seems to have pretty good reviews. It is paid software, but it's a one time purchase of $4. Worth a shot!
It's incredible how bad it is both for macOS and even on iOS.
I know people like to criticise Spotify's UX/UI but whenever I'm using Apple Music on my partner's devices (she has AM, I'm on Spotify) it's a quite marked difference in snappiness of the UI, Apple Music for some reason has the same weird loading behaviour that the App Store suffers from (and sometimes even fucking System Settings on macOS goes through), and I can't understand how Apple can drop the ball that much in their own platforms...
It's definitely one of the worst apps I've ever used in a long time. Finder is another POS.
Slow. The main "Listen Now Screen" is slow. It's an un-cached webview or something, that should be instantaneous.
The "Search area" is on the scrolling side bar on the left, and the toggle for searching between Apple Music and just your own library is on the right. It's not in the toolbar at the top where it should be and where it is on damn near every other macos app.
The lyrics can't expand to bigger, unless you switch to fullscreen mode, and then they're often unreadable because of the background colours.
I don't understand. These are "just" media players and all split up to do one thing each. How do they all do that one thing so miserably. TV hangs for multiple seconds every single time I download or delete episodes of TV shows and the player is so incredibly bad and doesn't save your progress properly
Huh, it never occurred to me that you could download episodes on an Apple TV. What’s the use-case? I download shows on my iPad so I can watch them when I’m traveling without internet, but my Apple TV is always plugged in. Intermittent connectivity in the home? Maybe bugs stick around because the feature is rarely used?
I'm not talking about the device btw. I am indeed talking about the TV app that comes preinstalled on Apple devices. I watch from my Macbook. The TV app is confusingly also Apple TV with a subscription service called Apple TV+
My use case is I've found that, for reasons unknown, the streaming quality is worse than if I download the episodes. Streaming always stays at 720p or lower whereas downloading gets me 1080p every time. And being able to watch things when I move around even with spotty internet
I can’t do the most basic of tasks on Apple Music on my Windows PC - I literally can’t play music!
I’ve tried:
- redownloading the app
- deleting all local state in the Music folder
- logging out of my account, and logging back in
- deauthorising my PC, then reauthorising it
It just never starts playback, no matter what I do!
Cider works fine. The Music apps on my phone and Mac work fine. Very weird.
edit: plus, they have a lot of problems with music artists getting mixed together - if an artist has a common name, say “Ray”, you’ll see music from other artists with the same name mixed in. Apple’s support totally disclaim responsibility and said I should contact the record label to get them to correct it. This is absolutely ridiculous, and the record label predictably doesn’t care. It ruins recommendations :/
Exactly the reason why I am rocking a Broadcast Headset (Beyerdynamic DT-797PV, to be specific) for work calls. It has XLR for the microphone and 1/4" for the headphones. All goes into a cheap Behringer UMC22. Never had any problems with Teams, Zoom, ... you name it, my colleagues using bluetooth have constant issues, be it with connectivity, audio quality or both.
Also since I wear glasses all day everyday I will never use any headphones that don't have velours earpads. So much more comfortable than faux leather.
Many of these SoC have HDMI directly from the IC without needing additional hardware converters. Something like DP you need a converter IC which adds expense and board space/complexity. Something like MIPI -> DP, I think TI makes some chipsets that do this.
The size is probably to save space on the board - looks like they try to keep to relatively the same size and mounting holes as previous boards.
I have an entire box of these mini-normal converter cables because of boards like this. OK when messing around but I can see the frustrations if you're not used to it.
a) the source code of the secure enclave is 100% open source
b) I can compile my own version of it
c) I can run my own version of it
d) I face no reprecussions (i.e. services not working, DRM not working, ...) if I choose to do so.
This is all fine and dandy for key storage purposes; you actually want all of these to guarantee that your keys are safe. But modern enclaves are primarily used for DRM, and this just doesn't work if I can just patch a way into my enclave to get the key if I really want to.
So, I'd much rather have a system with no enclave which I can attach a HSM to than a secure "trust me bro" enclave.
DRM was the original sin of computing, and nobody can convince me otherwise.
And then it becomes a problem of proving your users violating the GPL. So you'd have to go after each one of them, which will be incredibly difficult, and proving damages would be even more difficult.
It's an asshole way of exploiting "Wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter" (where's no plaintiff, there's no judge) since actually proving that the developers violated the GPL will be difficult, unless they have a CI system that readily documents this.