Many sites are reporting the retraction of the Qualcomm DMCA request, which affected even some of their own repositories. The "qca" user in the prior link stands for Qualcomm Atheros, a division of the very company whose IP its source code is alleged to infringe.
However, it doesn't offer any explanation on why it happened in the first place. I suspect a certain web intelligence outfit is about to lose a contract.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Qualcomm Retracts its DMCA Takedown Request, Apologizes for Approach
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 7 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday July 08 2014, @11:54PM
A three year old. Finds someone else in the nursery playing with toys. Tries to grab them all.
Mine! Mine! Mine!
Anyway, that's how I saw this whole thing.
Qualcomm may have done it, but Cyveillance put them up to it.
Funny thing is Qualcomm actually paid for the advice that made them look like an ass.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday July 09 2014, @12:22AM
They actually got what they paid for, then, in spades! Their reputation on-line is definitely secure now! Almost nothing any one could do would change it! That is what you call "professional service"! Thanks, Cambone and company!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 09 2014, @12:24AM
Posting AC for obvious reasons... But having worked at qcom in the past I can safely say they scan everything. They even scan their own internal code. IP is an integral part of their profits. They will help everyone out to make it work. They do however want a cut of the action. Someone probably outsourced the looking for infringement the company went overboard. It happens... They failed to manage their external resources. It is a common mistake many companies make with contractors. I saw it a few times while I worked there. The projects I worked on we typically gave away the software to sell more chips and a monthly cost.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday July 09 2014, @05:56AM
It's rather clear that that happened. The first half of what Qualcom needs to do to help restore it's reputation is partially accomplished. But until the publicly fire the company that abused the process, and publicly explain why, their reputation will remain tarnished.
My guess is they hired somebody stupid enough to not notice that in addition to a Qualcom copyright, the files also had a GPL authorization. Also someone heavy handed enough to remove entire repositories over a single small file. (It's my understanding that most of the files in question were drivers for Qualcom hardware. And that they had been released under the GPL.)
OTOH, I'm not close to the action. I could well be wrong about the details, or even the substance. But this is true of most people who are forming their attitude towards Qualcom based on this action.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 09 2014, @07:53PM
Same AC again. More than likely they ran it thru their usual battery of source checkers. It came up positive and they didnt bother to check. I got dinged MANY times on that because I happened to use a well known chart of numbers for a lookup table. Kept having to explain that for this to work correctly it HAD to have that chart of numbers. It was in the specification and the specification said to use it freely. But many opensource and closed source project had it already so I got dinged. I got tired of it and reformated the numbers to trick the source lookup code and it didnt take much either.
They rarely looked any deeper. They just see you were dinged and then dropped it back in your lap.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by deimios on Wednesday July 09 2014, @01:15PM
This whole debacle is only a symptom of the disease. It will happen again.
Anyone know of an online git repository that is hosted outside of US jurisdiction? I don't have any objectionable code but I'm afraid of losing access to my repository at a critical time because of some gung-ho executive somewhere considering github the next piratebay and knocking it offline.
(Score: 1) by cyrano on Wednesday July 09 2014, @02:34PM
Noticed how most of the negative report links on the Cyveillance WikiPedia page are unavailable?
Threatening people IS their business, after all.
The quieter you become, the more you are able to hear. - Kali [kali.org]