The `checkBrowser` function says it is from brainjar.com and used under their terms of service. On the brainjar.com terms of service, it seems to say the code is licensed under the GPLv2+.
Doesn't this make the Comcast script now under the GPL - since GPL code can only be included in compatibly licensed products. Or is Comcast violating the GPL?
This is a crappy move on Comcast's part, but as far as GPL they most likely are not in violation. You can use GPL code in a commercial product as long as you are not distributing it.
If they ever choose to sell or distribute their "content injection system" though, they would have to release it under the GPL or else negotiate another license from the copyright owner.
How are they not distributing it if they send this JavaScript to each user notified? Of course it's JavaScript so maybe that counts as distributing the source...
AGPL fixes this problem for backend code running on the web server, which is technically not distributed, so GPLv2 does not apply. For Javascript code, the code is distributed to the web browser, so even GPLv2 applies.
If the `checkBrowser` function uses GPL'd code, then anything that calls `checkBrowser` in turn must be licensed under the GPL.
But that doesn't mean that this Comcast code _is_ licensed under the GPL. That means that the copyright owner (brainjar) can take action against Comcast, and tell them to either stop using their code, or change the license.
If Brainjar had licensed this code AGPL then Comcast would have to release their code. But since it's GPL 2 then they have no legal right to require Comcast or anybody else to stop using their code. That's one of the great things about GPL (or horrible things, depending on your intention)
Read up on your licenses folks, make sure your code is used the way you intend.
I think this is a very interesting move. Watching the video, it looks a bit like NFC tap to beam (which most android devices use) or bump (now shut down) except with the OS level integration.
I'm not really sure how good doing it at an OS level is. It could create a real barrier to adoption - you can't just download it from Google Play.
On PC you download random software from the software makers website, not from a Google or Apple site. Now, if you are downloading something from the Google play store, that implies some form of responsibility by Google. Google is being careful to stop some people from saying "I got a virus from Google!!! They are evil!!!", and similar things.
That is the statement they are making, but it's not the reality. There is a lot of what can only be described by reasonable people as malware in all of the app stores. They are not curated at all. It just happens that sometimes, an app has a complaint against it and an investigation leads to the app getting banned. That's what I mean by the post-hoc system they employ.
And let's not even get into the issues of quality or uniqueness. How many freaking compass apps do you really need?
If you're going to limit free, open installations, and market to users a curated ecosystem, then curate the apps already. Create a review board. No app goes published without human eyes overlooking it. I don't care that it will reduce the number of approved apps (or the maximum approval rate). That's the entire freaking point. Curate the apps already.
It is great to see the US punishing people using bitcoin the wrong way... They even kind of implied that they think it is a real currency! I'm sure that this is a reversal on their position!
I wouldn't call that support, so much as auctioning it off because they're required to, need to convert it to real currency, or just don't know what the hell else to do with it.
Nothing was ever mentioned about supporting it in any way, shape or form.
I think treating it as something of value is a meaningful type of support. If they seized something like a broken DVD player they'd probably just dispose of it, and if they seized illicit drugs they'd destroy them. Auctioning them says that it's a legal store of value.
The author is not suggesting taking others content and calling it their own - he is suggesting almost keeping a backup with a bibliography. Infact, this already exists today - do you hate archive.org?
Doesn't this make the Comcast script now under the GPL - since GPL code can only be included in compatibly licensed products. Or is Comcast violating the GPL?