Puppy Ripped off by Google Developer??
@NeroVance: http://gosforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=4339
Looks like the dev dude got bored and moved on... or something like that
EDIT: D'oh! Link fixed.
Looks like the dev dude got bored and moved on... or something like that
EDIT: D'oh! Link fixed.
Last edited by starhawk on Fri 22 Feb 2013, 18:41, edited 1 time in total.
I may have tested that greenOS it looks very familiar.
But I have puppies and other linuxes on some 5 different computers
so I am too lazy to boot all of them up just to find out.
I am curious on if Greenguy really had the one Jeff talks about
could it not have been Chrome compiled for to be booted on intel cpu
there where such several of them some years ago. Even I manged
to boot one of these but them where android AFAIK.
But I have puppies and other linuxes on some 5 different computers
so I am too lazy to boot all of them up just to find out.
I am curious on if Greenguy really had the one Jeff talks about
could it not have been Chrome compiled for to be booted on intel cpu
there where such several of them some years ago. Even I manged
to boot one of these but them where android AFAIK.
I use Google Search on Puppy Forum
not an ideal solution though
not an ideal solution though
If all of this is true, then this definitely is a feather in Puppy Linux's hat...congrats to Barry for sure!!
Also, if true, and I have a tendency to think that it is true, I wonder if Google would consider high speed server space for our little project. Just a thought. Some people would recoil at the thought but my mind says growing is good...so grow if possible.
I was going to move to Debian/Ubuntu/BSD etc but as Smokey01 said to me awhile back..."we are Puppy and it works so why move onto another bloated OS...we are happy as clams" (this isn't an exact quote..sorry Grant..but the point is well taken)
I for one am intrigued by the prospect that Puppy finally made it onto phones (one of my original request to Telus Corp).
Resistance is Futile...Eric
Also, if true, and I have a tendency to think that it is true, I wonder if Google would consider high speed server space for our little project. Just a thought. Some people would recoil at the thought but my mind says growing is good...so grow if possible.
I was going to move to Debian/Ubuntu/BSD etc but as Smokey01 said to me awhile back..."we are Puppy and it works so why move onto another bloated OS...we are happy as clams" (this isn't an exact quote..sorry Grant..but the point is well taken)
I for one am intrigued by the prospect that Puppy finally made it onto phones (one of my original request to Telus Corp).
Resistance is Futile...Eric
[color=darkred][i]Be not afraid to grow slowly, only be afraid of standing still.[/i]
Chinese Proverb[/color]
Chinese Proverb[/color]
You got Telus to offer phones with Puppy on them? Neat!Caneri wrote:If all of this is true, then this definitely is a feather in Puppy Linux's hat...congrats to Barry for sure!!
Also, if true, and I have a tendency to think that it is true, I wonder if Google would consider high speed server space for our little project. Just a thought. Some people would recoil at the thought but my mind says growing is good...so grow if possible.
I was going to move to Debian/Ubuntu/BSD etc but as Smokey01 said to me awhile back..."we are Puppy and it works so why move onto another bloated OS...we are happy as clams" (this isn't an exact quote..sorry Grant..but the point is well taken)
I for one am intrigued by the prospect that Puppy finally made it onto phones (one of my original request to Telus Corp).
Resistance is Futile...Eric
I use Bell (Aliant actually, it's the division in my region), hence who knows. Still, a Canadian service offering excellent phones with Puppy (I hope), that sounds swell.
If Jeff is the real Jeff then he is virtually admitting Google has patented some technology that already existed in Puppy - and therefore under the GPL license.The patent I think may relate to something I think either a puplet or early puppy was able to do, involving booting over PXE.
To some extent. I don't want to go into any detail, as its certainly covered by the NDA I signed for Google. Google takes their NDAs and trade secrets very seriously.
Euh... http://distro.ibiblio.org/amigolinux/ ?amigo wrote:And what is Puppy 'based' off of?
musher0
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
~~~~~~~~~~
"You want it darker? We kill the flame." (L. Cohen)
It is interesting that Puppy was the inspiration to Jeff but it seems to me from Jeff's original post that it was running in RAM that he liked and the patent was something to do with net loading apps.
I don't care really. The whole American patent system is mad - it discourages the small guy and can be used against non-American firms to hinder their ability to compete.
What intrigues me is Amigo's comment that Puppy was not the first Live CD to run in RAM. I am intrigued. It certainly was not the first Live CD but I'd love to know which other Linux ran in RAM by default and was a full blown system like Puppy. Knoppix could be set by cheatcode to run in RAM but the default was to run from CD and you needed a lot of RAM to run solely in RAM. Damn Small LInux was based on Knoppix so did not run in RAM by default. What other small footprint GUI Linux's were around in the early days of Puppy?
I don't care really. The whole American patent system is mad - it discourages the small guy and can be used against non-American firms to hinder their ability to compete.
What intrigues me is Amigo's comment that Puppy was not the first Live CD to run in RAM. I am intrigued. It certainly was not the first Live CD but I'd love to know which other Linux ran in RAM by default and was a full blown system like Puppy. Knoppix could be set by cheatcode to run in RAM but the default was to run from CD and you needed a lot of RAM to run solely in RAM. Damn Small LInux was based on Knoppix so did not run in RAM by default. What other small footprint GUI Linux's were around in the early days of Puppy?
- puppy_apprentice
- Posts: 299
- Joined: Tue 07 Feb 2012, 20:32
in 2003 i was testing ByzantineOS - Linux with Mozilla as Desktop, loaded to RAM - something like grandfather (or one of grandfathers?) for FirefoxOS and GoogleOS?
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distri ... yzantineos
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distri ... yzantineos
Not to change the topic, but I always liked the concept of the Chromebooks. Fast booting, always up to date, and the $249 looks like it has decent hardware. Puppy is more versatile, and loading it onto small quality laptop would give a lot of the same capabilities/qualities of a Chromebook, as long as Chromium browser is installed. In addition, one can dual boot with other OS's. I wish I could get Chrome remote desktop to work on Chromium browser in Puppy.
HP Pavilion Mini Pentium 1.7 GHz Dual Core 12 GB RAM 120 GB SSD Linux Lite 3.8 64-bit w/ Kensington Slimblade Trackball
Bionic8.0 Xenial64 Tahr64 USB frugal install
Samsung Chromebook Plus
LG V20 LG Xpression Plus Huawei Ascend XT2
Bionic8.0 Xenial64 Tahr64 USB frugal install
Samsung Chromebook Plus
LG V20 LG Xpression Plus Huawei Ascend XT2
Hi
Guys
This thread has missed the whole very basic issue.
ANY thing which is built withthe linux kernal as a base cannot have any patent UNLESS that code was develpoed for a none linux system.
Google knows its on bad ground with the google OS and the android patents as they are in the same position as microsoft.
Basicaly google has used the Linux Kernal and have not stayed within the spirit of the Linux ethos.
I will not use google OS because of this very basic issue.
Guys
This thread has missed the whole very basic issue.
ANY thing which is built withthe linux kernal as a base cannot have any patent UNLESS that code was develpoed for a none linux system.
Google knows its on bad ground with the google OS and the android patents as they are in the same position as microsoft.
Basicaly google has used the Linux Kernal and have not stayed within the spirit of the Linux ethos.
I will not use google OS because of this very basic issue.
Hello,
Actually, that`s not the case..
Firstly, he did not patent Puppy, Linux, or any Linux code..
He patented the idea of a "web-centric OS"..
However, Android for example, is based on the Linux kernel..
Does the GPL allow Google to patent:
"The name and image "Android" as it applies to a mobile OS"..
Yes... It does...
What about the software?
OK.. Lets say I write the code from scratch..
If I don`t incorporate any code released under the GPL, even though my code runs on the Linux kernel, I dont have to release it under the GPL.. I then only have to provide the kernel sources, nothing more..
Lets say I do use GPL`d code and software.. Can I patent it.. Can I sell it?
As long as I "provide access to the source code" I sure can..
The GPL doesnt say "you cannot profit from, or own, your work"
As long as you "provide access to the source code" you sure can..
You cant patent GPL`d code itself, but you can patent your "Idea" using it..
For example, lets say I come up with a way to use MTPaint to control Radar installations. I cannot patent the MTPaint software itself, it is GPL..
But I can patent the "use of graphical software as it applies to Radar control"
or some such BS... Just have to provide the MTPaint sources, nothing more...
The GPL doesnt prevent owning YOUR OWN ideas, or code.. Just the use of other GPL code to do so..
So if you write YOUR OWN ORIGINAL code in C, just because it runs on the Linux kernel, does not mean you have to release it GPL.. "Open Source" isnt forced upon you.
Just because it is "The right thing to do" doesnt mean you are bound to do it..
Actually, that`s not the case..
Firstly, he did not patent Puppy, Linux, or any Linux code..
He patented the idea of a "web-centric OS"..
However, Android for example, is based on the Linux kernel..
Does the GPL allow Google to patent:
"The name and image "Android" as it applies to a mobile OS"..
Yes... It does...
What about the software?
OK.. Lets say I write the code from scratch..
If I don`t incorporate any code released under the GPL, even though my code runs on the Linux kernel, I dont have to release it under the GPL.. I then only have to provide the kernel sources, nothing more..
Lets say I do use GPL`d code and software.. Can I patent it.. Can I sell it?
As long as I "provide access to the source code" I sure can..
The GPL doesnt say "you cannot profit from, or own, your work"
As long as you "provide access to the source code" you sure can..
You cant patent GPL`d code itself, but you can patent your "Idea" using it..
For example, lets say I come up with a way to use MTPaint to control Radar installations. I cannot patent the MTPaint software itself, it is GPL..
But I can patent the "use of graphical software as it applies to Radar control"
or some such BS... Just have to provide the MTPaint sources, nothing more...
The GPL doesnt prevent owning YOUR OWN ideas, or code.. Just the use of other GPL code to do so..
So if you write YOUR OWN ORIGINAL code in C, just because it runs on the Linux kernel, does not mean you have to release it GPL.. "Open Source" isnt forced upon you.
Just because it is "The right thing to do" doesnt mean you are bound to do it..
Close the Windows, and open your eyes, to a whole new world
I am Lead Dog of the
Puppy Linux Users Group on Facebook
Join us!
Puppy since 2.15CE...
I am Lead Dog of the
Puppy Linux Users Group on Facebook
Join us!
Puppy since 2.15CE...
The name and image are trademarks, they do not apply to the technology used. You could patent mobile OS technology as long as it didn't use ideas/code substantially taken from ideas/code already under GPLDoes the GPL allow Google to patent:
"The name and image "Android" as it applies to a mobile OS"..
Yes... It does... ...
You are right you could sell GPL code, but you couldn't patent it. Unless the idea/code was substantially different - like in your radar example.... Lets say I do use GPL`d code and software.. Can I patent it.. Can I sell it?
As long as I "provide access to the source code" I sure can..
The GPL doesnt say "you cannot profit from, or own, your work" ...
It is not that simple. GPL version 3 spells this out in section 11:puppyluvr wrote:You cant patent GPL`d code itself, but you can patent your "Idea" using it..
For example, lets say I come up with a way to use MTPaint to control Radar installations. I cannot patent the MTPaint software itself, it is GPL..
But I can patent the "use of graphical software as it applies to Radar control" or some such BS... Just have to provide the MTPaint sources, nothing more...
The GPL doesnt prevent owning YOUR OWN ideas, or code.. Just the use of other GPL code to do so..
A contributor's "essential patent claims" are all patent claims
owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or
hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted
by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version,
but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a
consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For
purposes of this definition, "control" includes the right to grant
patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of
this License.
Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free
patent license under the contributor's essential patent claims, to
make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and
propagate the contents of its contributor version.
If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or
arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a
covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties
receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify
or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license
you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered
work and works based on it.
And this is precisely why mtPaint is "GPL 3 or later".
But the Linux kernel is licensed under GPL version 2, which does not explicitly preclude some downstream contributor, or distributor, from trying to spring some patent trap on others.
Re: Puppy Ripped off by Google Developer??
Sounds like your hourly rate was pretty crappyjeff-nelson wrote:PS - Now if you want a piece of the patent bonus that Google paid me for this project... I'll buy you half a beer sometime and we'll call it even.
So who actually "owns" the patent? I presume Google owns it even though you did the groundwork?
This seems to be the same patent technosaurus mentioned last year:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 7&start=85
He mentions a discussion on Slashdot:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/12/08/10 ... -os-patent
(a lot of the embedded comments further down that thread are very interesting, particularly the ones about LTSP)
You know, it's really amazing how some people can spin the BS when they want to muddy the waters. Check out this link:
http://www.zdnet.com/the-secret-origins ... 000012215/
He implies that he is going to reveal the origins of ChromeOS, then comes out with this cleverly twisted piece of "logic":
Knowing what ChromeOS is built on today is a totally different thing to identifying it's origins.
I really hate to see people mask the creative genius that initially gives birth to great solutions. Give credit where credit is due I reckon.
http://www.zdnet.com/the-secret-origins ... 000012215/
He implies that he is going to reveal the origins of ChromeOS, then comes out with this cleverly twisted piece of "logic":
Nicely done - somehow the "origins" of ChromeOS are a 2010 switch to Gentoo????So if Nelson's project wasn't Chrome OS's father, where did it come from? Originally, it seems to have started with Ubuntu Linux. Chrome OS was released in November 2009 and the news quickly came out that Canonical, Ubuntu's parent company, had helped build Chrome OS.
In a Canonical blog posting, Chris Kenyon, then Canonical's VP of OEM Services, wrote, "Canonical is contributing engineering to Google under contract. In our discussions, Sundar Pichai [Google's senior vice president of Chrome] and Linus Upson [Google's VP of engineering for Chrome] made it clear that they want, wherever feasible, to build on existing components and tools from the open-source community without unnecessary re-invention."
So, Chrome OS today is based on Ubuntu? Well, no... it's not. The first builds of Chrome OS had Ubuntu as its foundation, but it's changed over the years. In February 2010, Chrome OS started switching its foundation Linux distribution from Ubuntu to the older, and more obscure, Gentoo Linux.
Knowing what ChromeOS is built on today is a totally different thing to identifying it's origins.
I really hate to see people mask the creative genius that initially gives birth to great solutions. Give credit where credit is due I reckon.
- jeff-nelson
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Thu 21 Feb 2013, 23:59
- Location: South Lake Tahoe, CA
- Contact:
I was disappointed with that article as well. He appears to have just restated parts of the G+ thread and gotten an additional quote from an anonymous source, presumably also Peter Kasting.You know, it's really amazing how some people can spin the BS when they want to muddy the waters. Check out this link:
http://www.zdnet.com/the-secret-origins ... 000012215/
I wrote this response, although I'm not sure ZD is going to publish it.
http://blog.jeff-nelson.com/2013/03/res ... ols-i.html
Its going to be difficult for me to document the invention process further unless/until someone at Google leaks some screenshots or one of the Powerpoint presentations we did for management. Or the Guppy distribution itself
- jeff-nelson
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Thu 21 Feb 2013, 23:59
- Location: South Lake Tahoe, CA
- Contact:
GPL patent issues
I notice you guys are going back and forth talking about GPL and patent issues earlier in the thread. I am not aware of any of those issues.
Google hired one of the best patent law firms in Silicon Valley to file this patent, so presumably they would have worked out any of those issues prior to filing the patent.
Google hired one of the best patent law firms in Silicon Valley to file this patent, so presumably they would have worked out any of those issues prior to filing the patent.