You still trust the server, unless the encryption is done with code that wasn't delivered from the server. E2E prevents your content from being stolen in a data breach or from being accessed if the server was fine when you sent a message but compromised later.
Good point. The (variously named) security code should allow you to withdraw even that trust (assuming you verify the security code and the binary on your client...), right. Or does it? If the server knows the secret, it can invisibly MITM you, right?
I have. It is a pain in the ass but certainly doable.
I am experienced with iOS, but honestly it is a big app so those who are familiar with Android could do this better, as I believe they actually have decompilers versus needing to read the compiled ARM code.
It might. I want to be at work as the same time as my team mates. My wife wants to be at work as the same time as hers. We both want to be home at the same time. Now my team mates have to be at work as the same time as my wife's...
That's not even taking vendors or customers into account we might be doing business with. Schooling for children currently primarily happening with all children in the same room doing the same thing at the same time also furthers this. Just these few examples already cover huge parts of society.
I have neither kids, nor did my wife actually have fixed working hours somewhere and yet my job is best done if I work the same hours as all the people who have those constraints. So any one of these can have a huge impact.
"The green and blue colors, z-position, and normal vector are all interpolated in the same manner. (Texture coordinates behave slightly differently because there you’d also need to take the perspective into account.)"
Colors (c), z, and texture coordinates (t) should all be interpolated differently because of perspective. You need to interpolate 1/z, c/z, t/z and for every pixel then do division eg. c/z / 1/z = c
Note that Google hasn't committed to not be litigious with most of it's good patents. They've signed their patent pledge for a very limited scope of patents which looks good for PR purposes.
Bear in mind, patent extortion tends to look good as a business model once your main revenue source is starting to wane. So while Google may be behaving with patents today, they've been amassing a pretty large library... and the advertising market is expected to start going downhill fast.
It's hard to get an accurate number on how many patents Google owns (Google's search results are unhelpful, I'm sure they know, but they aren't sharing), but considering they picked up 17,000 from the Motorola acquisition alone, we can assume safely that Google is reserving the right to be a patent troll.
"Note that Google hasn't committed to not be litigious with most of it's good patents.'
Google has released 4000+ open source projects[1] under the apache license, which has a pretty broad patent grant, something you seem to be completely ignoring.
This includes things like tensorflow, the maps geometry library, etc.
I'm not sure what you consider "the good patents", but for most developers, it's the stuff we open source.
[1] This is just the 30 day active number, the total number over the 11 years i've been at Google is closer to 12k, last i looked.
Re: Apache license. But that only really covers the patent as far as the specific open source work in question. Implementing the content of said patent independently would leave you open to being sued by Google, right?
The question is, if Google has this open patent pledge, right, why are only 245 patents in it of the tens of thousands they have? Dare I suggest you ask Larry Page if you ever get the chance, why is Google so afraid to put it's money where it's PR spin is? If Google TRULY believes what it says, it'd act on it.
"Re: Apache license. But that only really covers the patent as far as the specific open source work in question. Implementing the content of said patent independently would leave you open to being sued by Google, right?"
Maybe? But i'm not sure what the point is?
This is true of literally every patent granting open source license
I mean, i'll be honest, this basically sounds like whining to me.
Nothing is ever enough.
As for the open patent pledge, it's pretty simple: Nobody has ever cared enough to desire more patents there.
Seriously. 99% of people don't go around trying to reimplement the stuff we do, they use the implementations we give them. Where they haven't, and it's serious, Google has tried to pledge patents. This has happened pretty much never. In fact, i can't think of the last time someone asked.
Optimizing heavily for the 1% case makes no sense.
Past that, OPN says "The OPN Pledge is designed to supplement existing OSS licensing alternatives ..."
(IE it's designed to supplement our permissive licensing).
In any case, it sounds like you have an axe to grind here, so i'm pretty much out, since i'm sure no answer i give you will ever satisfy you.
The answer "Hey, we're working on getting all our patents into our patent pledge" would totally satisfy me. But let's be honest: It's never going to happen.
Patent licensing that only benefits people using Google tech is exactly the sort of hypocrisy Google and others accuse Microsoft of. (Manufacturers who ship Windows Mobile generally don't get sued for violating Microsoft's patents, AFAIK.) Obviously, since Microsoft's OS would implement it's own mobile device tech, the sorts of protections afforded by Google via Apache licensing probably doesn't protect Microsoft from a suit by Google, for example.
What is the harm in Google pledging all of their patents, if they have no intention to ever use them offensively?
"The answer "Hey, we're working on getting all our patents into our patent pledge" would totally satisfy me. But let's be honest: It's never going to happen.
"
It's not supposed to happen?
The same way that one does not have to give up all their worldly possessions to be a good catholic.
"Patent licensing that only benefits people using Google tech is exactly the sort of hypocrisy Google and others accuse Microsoft of."
Except that's not what it is, and spinning it this way just shows you keep trying to find ways to hate it.
It's patent that benefits people using the code google gave them.
If you take the code from a google patented project, and use it, derive from it, whatever, you end up with patent protection.
Which, as i said, 99% of people do, including Microsoft, so your next example is simply wrong.
These companies simply don't usually do what you are saying is the issue.
IE
" Obviously, since Microsoft's OS would implement it's own mobile device tech, the sorts of protections afforded by Google via Apache licensing probably doesn't protect Microsoft from a suit by Google, for example."
Is neither obvious, nor correct. In fact, they just use our implementation in the cases i'm aware of.
The last time someone came to us and said "i want to use the patents but not the code", was webm. So we created a spec, and gave patent license to all implementations of the spec, google created or not.
Can you provide a real example instead of theoretical cases? I can state, affirmatively, that anyone who has come to us with a serious need, we've solved it, AFAIK.
Can you provide a counterexample?
"What is the harm in Google pledging all of their patents, if they have no intention to ever use them offensively?"
What's the benefit?
There are lots of possible harms, like the inability to use them defensively in certain situations (no pledge is perfect, it's not possible to create something without loopholes), the inability to maintain the status quo of patent peace, etc. There's a lot of risk here.
You seem to have this black and white view where this is zero risk, and it's just silly to me.
It's like saying: What's the harm in destroying all of the US nuclear weapons if they never plan on using them offensively?
You act as if this is a zero risk proposition, but it's not.
The benefit is being able to trust they won't be used offensively. Being able to trust those patents were open for use, and not at risk of being weaponized, is a major benefit.
You have to bear in mind, for probably 99% of Google's patents (as I said, we don't really have an exact official number including acquisitions), Google is entirely capable of either selling them to Intellectual Ventures et al. or going patent troll themselves when the market turns against them (or their business model becomes illegal).
The fact that so far Google has been accommodating with a small number of patents and currently claims to be against using patent litigation. What Google engineers preach and what Google legal does (see also: support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership) are two different things. In fact, much like Microsoft, as we can see with a combination of open sourcing and patent litigation.
Why are you addressing a hypothetical theory that has absolutely no basis? Why not address a real issue like Microsoft extorting Billions from Android OEM's for their obsolete, junk filled prior art ridden patents?
The most of the world doesn't have them in a first place, so no need to ban anything. It is just that USA is so horribly protective nation, that rest of us have to deal with this as well. E.g. want to sell your NZ stuff in states? Well, better to pay some protection money then.
With what? EME is a "cure" for a problem you shouldn't have in the first place. Idiotic technology to do nothing useful and solve no problems to make some content company executives feel better about their liability.
EME does abosolutely nothing to prevent piracy and only serves as another roadblock for people to jump before seeing videos.
All it shows is that there is certain group of people which will pirate even if the content would be given for free.
The people that would view paid content should not be punished with DRM, that only works on certain platforms and certain browsers.
It actually makes pirated product much better than original. Pirated videos besides being free work on all platforms, you can view it on your computer, phone, tablet. Living or visiting a different country does not revoke your rights to see it, and you can make as many copies of it as you want.
Well, if youtube clips uploaded at 1080p couldn't be watched at 1080p, people would complain. When services advertise "hd video" and it doesn't actually work in HD... I'm sure you can figure it out. But then maybe you can't, given your remark.
The most attractive feature of netflix is that it is everywhere and most people would not have a problem installing a dedicated app, just look and android and ios.
Netflix already has their own Windows desktop app. Because it can use Microsoft's unsandboxed PlayReady DRM, it can play 1080p video while Chrome and Firefox can only play 720p.
IMHO the hostile takeover of the ffmpeg project by the libav guys (Fabrice Bellard had to wield trademark to force them to rename the fork) and intense FUD campaign were much bigger issues.
I’m mad that a person, who bought a trademark for a project, then decided to act against the interest of the majority of the participants of the project,
Let me get this straight, your mad because Fabrice Bellard, the person who started ffmpeg, asserted his trademark on the libav folks because their fork initially used the name ffmpeg?
Seeing as your the maintainer for QuasselDroid, How would you like it if a group of contributors wanted to take the project in a different direction then you, so they fork it, call their fork QuasselDroid, and then say your branch is immoral, like you have throughout this page, I doubt you would enjoy this, and if you owned the QuasselDroid trademark I'm sure you would use it too.
With all due respect, you are not answering the question that the parent poster asked. If someone created a hostile fork of QuassalDroid, and made decisions that you disagreed with, I doubt you would be OK with them using the same name for the project. The right to fork is fundamental in open source, but there is no right to present someone else's work as your own, or to confuse the general public about which version of a software package they are downloading. People should be able to decide for themselves which software to download, not be fooled by someone passing off something different as the same thing. That's why trademarks exist. Enforcing trademarks is not bad or wrong.
Trademarks can be held by an organization, not just by one person. This is how Apache software works, for example. In that case, there are bylaws in place to ensure that the interests of different people are represented, decisions can be made fairly, and toxic people can be prevented from killing the project.
In contrast, projects such as Python have a "benevolent dictator" moderl where one person has the final say about the direction of development. There is nothing unethical about a BDFL model in open source; it's just a choice that a community can make.
You seem to be deliberately confusing yourself about the distinction between forking, which is always allowed, and representing your fork as the original project, which is never allowed. If you are still confused, think about it this way: would you want someone to attach a bunch of malware to your project and redistribute it under its original name, as if it were your version? You can't prevent this without trademark law.
