Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

US Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle

Filed under

The long saga of Oracle's copyright-infringement against Google, which copied much of the Java API for use in Android, has come to an end with this ruling [PDF] in favor of Google. "Google’s purpose was to create a different task-related system for a different computing environment (smartphones) and to create a platform—the Android platform—that would help achieve and popularize that objective. The record demonstrates numerous ways in which reimplementing an interface can further the development of computer programs. Google’s purpose was therefore consistent with that creative progress that is the basic constitutional objective of copyright itself."

Read more

More coverage

  • Google v. Oracle: Use of Oracle’s API is a Fair Use

    In a 6-2 decision authored by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court has held that Google’s copying of the JAVA API naming convention was a fair use as a matter of law. The court did not decide the question of whether the API was copyrightable in the first place.

    In his dissent, Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Alito) argues that the majority opinion “disregards half the relevant statutory text and distorts its fair-use analysis. . . . Oracle’s code at issue here is copyrightable, and Google’s use of that copyrighted code was anything but fair.”

  • Supreme Court deems Google's use of Java APIs in Android fair use, thus no infringement--doesn't reach API copyrightability

    Supreme Court deems Google's use of Java APIs in Android fair use, thus no infringement--doesn't reach API copyrightability 15:57
    Author: Florian Mueller e-mail page | Android, APIs, Copyright, Fair Use, Google, Java, Oracle, Supreme Court
    Based on how the Google v. Oracle Supreme Court hearing went in October 2020, it appeared to be a given that the Java APIs in question were copyrightable, and the fair use debate was over whether the Federal Circuit had correctly ruled against Google or whether the San Francisco jury would have had to be afforded so much deference that a judgment as a matter of law wasn't warranted. In the former case, the case would have gone back to San Francisco for a remedies determination. In the latter case, the Federal Circuit would likely have remanded for a retrial, as Oracle was disadvantaged by the district court.

    Surprisingly, the Supreme Court has just declared Google's copying of thousands of lines of declaring code to be fair use, thereby substantially weakening software copyright protection in the United States as there had not previously been a case involving such a substantial amount of undisputedly original and creative program code that someone else was allowed to incorporate into a competing product and distribute billions of times.

    This decision was supportd by six of the nine justices. Only Justices Thomas and Alito dissented (and noted that the majority didn't want to address copyrightability because it couldn't have reached its fair use conclusion thereafter). Justice Barrett was appointed after the hearing.

One more

  • Supreme Court Sides With Google Over Oracle In Landmark Android Fair Use Case | HotHardware

    However you may feel about the case, it is certainly an interesting look into the world of computer programming. Moreover, the application of fair use here could have rippling effects, with similar cases popping up in the future. In any case, let us know what you think of the court's decision in the comments below, and stay tuned to HotHardware to see if Oracle continues its fight.

Software Innovation Prevails in Landmark Supreme Court Ruling

  • Software Innovation Prevails in Landmark Supreme Court Ruling in Google v. Oracle

    Supreme Court ruled today that reimplementing an API is fair use under US copyright law. The Court’s reasoning should apply to all cases where developers reimplement an API, to enable interoperability, or to allow developers to use familiar commands. This resolves years of uncertainty, and will enable more competition and follow-on innovation in software.

Red Hat and More

  • Red Hat statement on U.S. Supreme Court decision in Google v. Oracle

    Today’s 6-2 Supreme Court decision is a win for developers and the software industry; it recognizes the critical role of software interfaces to promote innovation, interoperability, and new technologies. Last year, Red Hat and IBM filed a joint amicus brief in this case urging the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court decision. The issues in this case were complex and the Supreme Court is to be commended for wrestling with its decades long history.

  • Supreme Court sides with Google against Oracle about copying APIs being 'fair use'

    It's being widely reported today that in the decade-long battle of Google vs Oracle that the Supreme Court has now finally ruled in Google's favour. This is huge, for Linux and Linux Gaming too.

    To prevent being too long-winded, I won't go deep into the technical details. The basics of the case were that Oracle sued Google going back into 2010 over the Java API. This was because Google did a reimplementation of it for early versions of Android and Oracle threw the lawyers around claiming doing so infringed on their copyright.

US SC backs Google in copyright fight with Oracle over Android

  • US SC backs Google in copyright fight with Oracle over Android OS

    Technology companies sighed with relief Monday after the Supreme Court sided with Google in a copyright dispute with Oracle. The high court said Google did nothing wrong in copying code to develop the Android operating system now used on most smartphones.

    To create Android, which was released in 2007, Google wrote millions of lines of new computer code. It also used about 11,500 lines of code copyrighted as part of Oracle's Java platform. Oracle had sued seeking billions.

4 more


    The fact that computer programs are primarily functional makes it difficult to apply traditional copyright con-cepts in that technological world. See Lotus Development Corp., 49 F. 3d, at 820 (Boudin, J., concurring). In doing so here, we have not changed the nature of those concepts. We do not overturn or modify our earlier cases involving fair use — cases, for example, that involve “knockoff” products, journalistic writings, and parodies. Rather, we here recognize that application of a copyright doctrine such as fair use has long proved a cooperative effort of Legislatures and courts, and that Congress, in our view, intended that it so continue. As such, we have looked to the principles set forthin the fair use statute, §107, and set forth in our earlier cases, and applied them to this different kind of copyrightedwork.

    We reach the conclusion that in this case, where Google reimplemented a user interface, taking only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program, Google’s copying of the Sun Java API was a fair use of that material as a matter of law. The Federal Circuit’s contrary judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

  • U.S. Supreme Court backs Google over Oracle in major copyright case

    Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, said that allowing Oracle to enforce a copyright on its code would harm the public by making it a "lock limiting the future creativity of new programs. Oracle alone would hold the key."

  • Supreme Court Hands Google a Landmark Win — and Hollywood a Huge Concern

    Was declaring code within the scope of copyright protection?

    Surprisingly, that's a question that the high court largely bypassed today. The case was pre-hyped as one that would determine the copyrightability of computer code, but Breyer essentially says: Let's assume all of Java is copyrighted; Did Google make fair use?

  • Supreme Court Overturns Oracle’s Copyright Win Over Google

    At issue were pre-written directions known as application program interfaces, or APIs, which provide instructions for such functions as connecting to the [Internet] or accessing certain types of files. By using those shortcuts, programmers don’t have to write code from scratch for every function in their software, or change it for every type of device.


    The Supreme Court didn’t address whether the code was eligible for copyright protection, an early point of contention. Instead, Breyer said that for this case the court would “assume, for argument’s sake, that the material was copyrightable.”

EFF response

  • Victory for Fair Use: The Supreme Court Reverses the Federal Circuit in Oracle v. Google

    In doing so, the decision underlined the real purpose of copyright: to incentivize innovation and creativity. When copyright does the opposite, fair use provides an important safety valve. Justice Breyer then turned to the specific fair use statutory factors. Appropriately for a functional software copyright case, he first discussed the nature of the copyrighted work. The Java APIs are a “user interface” that allow users (here the developers of Android applications) to “manipulate and control” task-performing computer programs. The Court observed that the declaring code of the Java APIs differs from other kinds of copyrightable computer code—it’s “inextricably bound together” with uncopyrightable features, such as a system of computer tasks and their organization and the use of specific programming commands (the Java “method calls”). As the Court noted:

    Thus, since the declaring code is “further than are most computer programs (such as the implementing code) from the core of copyright,” this factor favored fair use. Justice Breyer then discussed the purpose and character of the use. Here, the opinion shed some important light on when a use is “transformative” in the context of functional aspects of computer software, creating something new rather than simply taking the place of the original. Although Google copied parts of the Java API “precisely,” Google did so to create products fulfilling new purposes and to offer programmers “a highly creative and innovative tool” for smartphone development. Such use “was consistent with that creative ‘progress’ that is the basic constitutional objective of copyright itself.” The Court discussed “the numerous ways in which reimplementing an interface can further the development of computer programs,” such as allowing different programs to speak to each other and letting programmers continue to use their acquired skills. The jury also heard that reuse of APIs is common industry practice. Thus, the opinion concluded that the “purpose and character” of Google’s copying was transformative, so the first factor favored fair use. Next, the Court considered the third fair use factor, the amount and substantiality of the portion used. As a factual matter in this case, the 11,500 lines of declaring code that Google used were less than one percent of the total Java SE program. And even the declaring code that Google used was to permit programmers to utilize their knowledge and experience working with the Java APIs to write new programs for Android smartphones. Since the amount of copying was “tethered” to a valid and transformative purpose, the “substantiality” factor favored fair use. Finally, several reasons led Justice Breyer to conclude that the fourth factor, market effects, favored Google. Independent of Android’s introduction in the marketplace, Sun didn’t have the ability to build a viable smartphone. And any sources of Sun’s lost revenue were a result of the investment by third parties (programmers) in learning and using Java. Thus, “given programmers’ investment in learning the Sun Java API, to allow enforcement of Oracle’s copyright here would risk harm to the public. Given the costs and difficulties of producing alternative APIs with similar appeal to programmers, allowing enforcement here would make of the Sun Java API’s declaring code a lock limiting the future creativity of new programs.” This “lock” would interfere with copyright’s basic objectives. The Court concluded that “where Google reimplemented a user interface, taking only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program, Google’s copying of the Sun Java API was a fair use of that material as a matter of law.” The Supreme Court left for another day the issue of whether functional aspects of computer software are copyrightable in the first place. Nevertheless, we are pleased that the Court recognized the overall importance of fair use in software cases, and the public interest in allowing programmers, developers, and other users to continue to use their acquired knowledge and experience with software interfaces in subsequent platforms.

Supreme Court Sides With Google In Decade-Long Fight Over API

8 more

  • Supreme Court rules that Android Java usage is fair use in win for Google over Oracle

    In 2019, Google asked the Supreme Court to review Oracle’s long-running lawsuit over whether Android’s usage of Java was fair use. The Supreme Court this morning sided with Google and overturned Oracle’s win following a lower court ruling three years ago.

    This suit dates back to Oracle’s 2010 purchase of Java developer Sun Microsystems. After the acquisition, the new language owners sued Google, claiming that Android’s use of Java entitled them to an $8.8 billion slice of the operating system’s business and $475 million in lost potential licensing revenue.

  • Supreme Court sides with Google in years long fight with tech giant Oracle

    The Supreme Court weighed into a decade-old battle Monday between tech firms Google and Oracle, finding the search giant was allowed to use thousands of lines of code to build the Android platform found in mobile devices.

  • The US Supreme Court just handed Google a huge win in its massive Android lawsuit

    It's been over a decade since Oracle first began its lawsuit against Google over the use of parts of the Java platform in Android. Today, the United States Supreme Court finally ended it, with Google being the long-protracted winner. While the relevant bits of Java haven't been used by Android in years, the end of this court battle sets a precedent in US copyright law that will be important for almost anyone making software platforms in the future.

  • Google wins decade-long battle against Oracle over Java on Android

    Google has just secured a major win for Android. The company has been locked in a decade-long battle with Oracle over its use of Java code in earlier Android versions. Oracle sued Google after purchasing Sun Microsystems, which developed the Java platform. Oracle claimed that Google stole its property when it copied code based on Java APIs to develop Android and attract developers, seeking almost $9 billion in damages.

  • Supreme Court sides with Google over Oracle in case of Android code

    The US Supreme Court has ruled for Google in the battle between the search giant and Oracle over the architecture of Google's Android operating system. In a 6-2 decision published Monday and written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court ruled that "Google's copying of the Java SE API, which included only those lines of code that were needed to allow programmers to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program, was a fair use of that material as a matter of law."

  • Supreme Court rules that Google's use of Java APIs in Android represent fair use

    Oracle, if you recall, filed suit against Google in August 2010, alleging its Android mobile operating system infringed upon Java patents Oracle acquired following its purchase of Sun Microsystems.

    Specifically, Google copied roughly 11,500 lines of code from 37 Java application programming interfaces (APIs) “to allow the millions of programmers familiar with the Java programming language to work with its new Android platform.”

  • Google Stock Rises As Supreme Court Rules Against Oracle In Android Software Dispute

    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in Alphabet's (GOOGL) favor in a copyright dispute with Oracle (ORCL) involving Android software, in a decision that could have broader implications for technology developers. Google stock climbed into a buy zone.

  • Google wins legal duel with Oracle over Android's use of Java code

    In a 6:2 verdict the US Supreme Court ruled on Monday (05 April) that Google did not violate the copyright law by copying Java API code owned by Oracle, overturning an earlier Appeals Court’s ruling in Oracle’s favour back in 2018. The Supreme Court sided with Google’s argument that the copying of the code was “fair use” when Android APIs were developed.

    The case was first filed in 2010 by Oracle after it bought Sun Microsystems, who created the Java programming language, therefore assumed the ownership of the software. Oracle alleged that Google, having refused a commercial licence arrangement, copied over 11,000 lines of the most recognisable portions of the Java platform and used it in a competing platform (Android), therefore violated the copyright law that protects software.

By Michael Risch and Dennis Crouch

  • Google v. Oracle - The Final Shoe Drops

    The Supreme Court ruled yesterday in Google v. Oracle that Google did not infringe Oracle's copyright in its APIs by virtue of fair use. The vote was 6-2, with Justice Breyer writing for the Court, and Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting.

    The opinion was straightforward and went to great lengths to attempt to explain the technology at issue. I thought it did a decent job of it (definitely more Godot than Guffman), even as the opinion continued to struggle for a good analogy. The Court adopted the file cabinet/drawer/folder analogy presented in Google's brief, which I thought was a terrible I guess there's no accounting for taste (or winning advocacy). The court's fair use analysis was influenced by Judge Boudin's concurrence in Lotus v. Borland, though that concurrence didn't actually call it fair use, but instead "privileged use."

    Others have and will surely write about the fair use aspects and what this means for software APIs. Contrary to Oracle's ridiculous and vitriolic press statement yesterday, this case will likely not change the way anyone in the industry behaves in the least. APIs have been used and reused for decades, and will continue to be. And contrary to being a barrier to entry, reuse of APIs allows for competitive inroads and entry, including by Oracle, in its mimicry of Amazon's AWS API. (Indeed, the hubris of Oracle's statement in light of its implementation of another company's API is stunning.)

    The opinion also has some nuggets for other fair use - discussion of transformation and art, definition of markets for determining harm, another reaffirmation of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, fair use as a mixed question of law and fact (something I discussed in a prior blog post), and so forth.

    Instead, I will focus on my hobby horse-whether the APIs are copyrighted, and if so how we get to non-infringement. The Supreme Court explicitly decided that the copyrightability of APIs is a third-rail and did not attempt to touch the issue. There are two ways to read the tea leaves. First, perhaps a majority of the court thought they were uncopyrightable, but feared the effects of saying so. Second (and my guess), perhaps a majority of the court (or a 4-4 split) thought that they were copyrightable, but fair use was an acceptable compromise. The second possibility is why I wrote and submitted my amicus brief, which was intended to give a path to non-infringement even if the APIs were copyrightable.

  • Google v. Oracle and the Mixed Question of Law and Fact

    In Google LLC v. Oracle Am., Inc., 593 U. S. ____ (2021), the Supreme Court spends a few pages walking through procedural aspects of the fair use defense.

    Like many patent law doctrines, fair use is a mixed question of law and fact. The defendant’s use of the asserted copyrighted work and its impact on the plaintiff are typically factual issues that must be proven by evidence as weighed by the factfinder (often a jury). These are questions such as “how much of the copyrighted work was copied” and “whether there was harm to the actual or potential markets for the copyrighted work.” Google at 19. However, the questions of law emerge when we are categorizing the importance of the factual findings as well as asking the ultimate question of whether the use was a fair use.

    The fact-law divide comes up in various ways: Is there a Constitutional right to a jury trial on the issue; lacking that may a jury still decide the issue; does proof require evidence (as defined by the Federal Rules of Evidence) proven to a particular standard; or instead do we simply look for the ‘right’ answer; on appeal, what is the standard of review — deference or not? Fact/Law also comes up in patent prosecution, but examiners are not charged with making the distinction and the rules of evidence don’t apply.

    At the trial court this leads to the very practical question of how easily a judge can dispose of the issue pre-trial. Questions of law are often easy to determine pre-trial; some mixed questions are also relatively easy to determine pre-trial if there is no right to a jury determination; mixed questions involving substantial factual disputes and a right to a jury trial are hard. In patent cases, courts are regularly making pre-trial determinations on claim construction and eligibility, both of which are ultimately questions of law but that can involve underlying factual determinations. Obviousness is another mixed question. Although the ultimate determination of obviousness is a question of law, it is treated differently from claim construction and eligibility. Rather than being decided by a judge, obviousness is typically decided by a jury as fact-finder. The difference is that obviousness typically requires detailed factual determinations that are hard to separate from the ultimate conclusion of obviousness and that are subject to a Constitutional right to a jury trial.

    In deciding an issue, a district court will typically s

By Thomas Claburn in San Francisco

  • Over a decade on, and millions in legal fees, Supreme Court rules for Google over Oracle in Java API legal war

    The US Supreme Court on Monday ruled in a 6-2 decision that Google's limited copying of Oracle's Java APIs in its Android operating system constitutes fair use under US law.

    The ruling puts an end to a case that troubled the software industry for more than a decade and narrows the scope of copyright law as it applies to software.

    The court had two questions before it: whether software interfaces qualify for copyright protection and whether Google's use of Oracle's software interface code represents fair use, assuming the Java APIs can be copyrighted.

    Oracle filed its lawsuit against Google in 2010, claiming copyright and patent infringement for Google's use of Java APIs in Android. In 2012, after the patent claims had been dismissed, US District Court Judge William Alsup ruled that Oracle's Java APIs did not qualify for copyright protection. In 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit disagreed. Google then asked the Supreme Court to review the decision but its petition was denied.

The maximalists

  • In-house: SCOTUS avoids ‘catastrophe’ in Google v Oracle [Ed: Copyright extremists funded by litigious law firms not happy with a decision that basically defended programmers and Fair Use doctrine]

    Sources from four technology companies reveal diverging views about the US Supreme Court's decision to sidestep API copyrightability

SCOTUS Says Google’s Use of Oracle’s Java Code in Android

  • Supreme Court Finds Google’s Use of Oracle’s Java Code in Android Operating System to Be Fair Use

    On April 5, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Google’s use of certain Java Application Programming Interfaces (API) in its Android operating system was not copyright infringement and instead constituted fair use of Oracle’s Sun Java API because Google used “only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program.” In its decision, the Supreme Court articulated important policy considerations underlying its decision, noting that, “given programmers’ investment in learning the Sun Java API here would risk harm to the public. Given the costs and difficulties of producing alternative APIs with similar appeal to programmers, allowing enforcement here would make of the Sun Java API’s declaring code a lock limiting the future creativity of new programs” and interfere with the basic objectives of copyright law. In sum, the Supreme Court relied on policy considerations relating to the ability of programmers to use existing code to support the interoperability of software, a common practice that many in the industry advocated as a practice necessary to sustain the feasibility of mobile computing.

The Google Vs Oracle Saga Is Finally Over.

  • The Google Vs Oracle Saga Is Finally Over. The US Supreme Court Ruled In Favor Of Google.

    The American Oracle-corporation filed a lawsuit against the American Google-corporation of over Google's use of Java API headers on the Android platform in August 2010. That saga is finally over after it had dragged for more than a decade. The supreme court rules that Google's use of the API headers in questions does not violate Oracle's imaginary property rights.

    The Google vs Oracle court-case over Google's use of Java API headers was kind of a big deal ages ago. Google took 11,500 lines of API headers and structures from Sun's Oracle-owned Java implementation and used that as a vital part of their Android operating system.

    A judge which some programming experience ruled in Google's favor in 2012. Oracle wasn't happy with that outcome, so the court-case dragged on and on. And on. And on. The US supreme court finally ended the whole saga with a ruling in Google's favor on April 5th, 2021.

What Google's API copyright win over Oracle means

  • What Google's API copyright win over Oracle means

    If you listen to Oracle, then the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) deciding that application programming interfaces (API) can't be strictly copyrighted because fair use applies was an awful decision. Google, the victor, disagrees. But, while this was a major win for Google, it was an even bigger win for all software developers -- yes, even Oracle's -- and for open API and open-source software in particular.

Google won... but did we win?

  • Google won... but did we win?

    In the long-running Google v. Oracle lawsuit tango, Google came out on top after the US Supreme Court ruled 6-2 in favor of Google. So to answer the question in the title... well, first... it's not a zero-sum game.

OSI's statement

  • Google vs Oracle: Resolved in Favor of Open Source

    We are pleased to report that Google vs. Oracle*, the landmark copyright case in the US courts about software interoperability, has been resolved favorably for open source developers. It’s been a long road to get here but it’s something the courts were always going to have to address -- is modern technology best served by the copyright maximalism that has long been promoted by the content industry or should we instead re-examine some of those assumptions to facilitate multi-company platform interoperability? The Supreme Court of the United States did not take on the full scope of the question but did provide some very helpful guidance.

    This was such an important question that OSI filed an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court to advocate on behalf of the open source community.** We filed in support of Google because the position Oracle was taking -- that it’s a copyright infringement to use API’s even when they are being used solely to create interoperability -- would’ve been disastrous for open source. Shared APIs (application programming interfaces) are essential for interoperability and innovation.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

Best Apps to Install on Linux Mint in 2021

Linux Mint is a popular Linux distro alongside Ubuntu. There is not much difference between the functionalities and features of the two. Hence, the various app that is compatible with Ubuntu also works effortlessly on Linux Mint. The advantage of using Linux distros and apps is that most are free and open-source. As Linux Mint is an alternative to Ubuntu, you can find an alternative to every popular and widely used app. Thus, there is no scarcity of apps in each category. However, finding a reliable app is not an easy task because of so many options. Read more

KDE Frameworks 5.81 Released with KHamburgerMenu, Various Improvements

The biggest new feature in the KDE Frameworks 5.81 release is the implementation of a new, custom hamburger menu called KHamburgerMenu, which will be shown on QWidgets-based apps whenever the main menubar is hidden. The KDE Project plans to adopt the KHamburgerMenu for all KDE apps as it offers several advantages, including an alternative app menu in case you hide the default menubar by accident, more freedom when you want to take full advantage of the maximum vertical space, more compact design with only relevant menu items, as well as support for relocating, renaming, removing, or even changing its icon. Read more

today's leftovers

  • Radeon Vulkan Driver Adds Option Of Rendering Less For ~30% Greater Performance - Phoronix

    If your current Vulkan-based Radeon Linux gaming performance isn't cutting it and a new GPU is out of your budget or you have been unable to find a desired GPU upgrade in stock, the Mesa RADV driver has added an option likely of interest to you... Well, at least moving forward with this feature being limited to RDNA2 GPUs for now. RADV as Mesa's Radeon Vulkan driver has added an option to allow Variable Rate Shading (VRS) via an environment variable override. This RADV addition is inspired by the likes of NVIDIA DLSS for trading rendering quality for better performance but in its current form is a "baby step" before being comparable to DLSS quality and functionality.

  • Bas Nieuwenhuizen: A First Foray into Rendering Less

    In RADV we just added an option to speed up rendering by rendering less pixels. These kinds of techniques have become more common over the past decade with techniques such as checkerboarding, TAA based upscaling and recently DLSS. Fundamentally all they do is trading off rendering quality for rendering cost and many of them include some amount of postprocessing to try to change the curve of that tradeoff. Most notably DLSS has been widly successful at that to the point many people claim it is barely a quality regression. Of course increasing GPU performance by up to 50% or so with barely any quality regression seems like must have and I think it would be pretty cool if we could have the same improvements on Linux. I think it has the potential to be a game changer, making games playable on APUs or playing with really high resolution or framerates on desktops. [...] VRS is by far the easiest thing to make work in almost all games. Most alternatives like checkerboarding, TAA and DLSS need modified render target size, significant shader fixups, or even a proprietary integration with games. Making changes that deeply is getting more complicated the more advanced the game is. If we want to reduce render resolution (which would be a key thing in e.g. checkerboarding or DLSS) it is very hard to confidently tie all resolution dependent things together. For example a big cost for some modern games is raytracing, but the information flow to the main render targets can be very hard to track automatically and hence such a thing would require a lot of investigation or a bunch of per game customizations.

  • Dota 2 version 7.29 is out with the new Dawnbreaker melee hero

    Valve has put out a major upgrade for their popular free to play MOBA with Dota 2 getting Dawnbreaker. This brand new hero is focused on melee, with a low-skill entry level so it should be suitable for a lot of players. You can see a dedicated hero page for Dawnbreaker here. "Dawnbreaker shines in the heart of battle, happily crushing enemies with her celestial hammer and healing nearby allies. She revels in hurling her hammer through multiple foes and then converging with it in a blazing wake, always waiting to tap her true cosmic power to fly to the aid of her teammates — eager to rout her enemies on the battlefield no matter where they are."

  • Grape times ahead with the release of Wine 6.6 noting plenty of fixes

    No wine-ing about the puns please. Jokes aside, the tasty compatibility tech that is Wine has a new development release available today with Wine 6.6. For newer readers and Linux users here's a refresher - Wine is a compatibility layer built for operating systems like Linux, macOS and BSD. The idea is to allow other platforms to run games and applications only built and supported for Windows. It's also part of what makes up Steam Play Proton. Once a year or so, a new stable release is made.

  • Friday’s Fedora Facts: 2021-14

    Here’s your weekly Fedora report. Read what happened this week and what’s coming up. Your contributions are welcome (see the end of the post)! The Final freeze is underway. The F34 Final Go/No-Go meeting is Thursday. I have weekly office hours on Wednesdays in the morning and afternoon (US/Eastern time) in #fedora-meeting-1. Drop by if you have any questions or comments about the schedule, Changes, elections, or anything else. See the upcoming meetings for more information.

  • A developer goes to the Masters: Day 1 inside the digital ops center [Ed: IBM is OK with the word "Master" again, contrary to spin]
  • Rancher Platform Partner, Weka delivers Stateful Storage for Containers at Scale

    Containers rose to the mainstream primarily due to workload portability and immutability advantages. Kubernetes became the primary orchestration tool and was initially supporting stateless applications, commonly referred to as the cattle vs. pets approach. However, data-centric applications need stateful-ness while still leveraging the cattle vs. pet approach. Microservices, Containers, and Kubernetes are now moving mainstream as increasingly more stateful applications are adopting them.

  • SUSE for your agile data platform, featuring Microsoft SQL Server[Ed: SUSE is just a worthless proprietary software reseller for SAP and Microsoft (their salesperson from SAP signing anti-RMS petition makes perfect sense and proves us correct about SUSE's motivations)]
  • What's the point of open source without contributors? Turns out, there are several [Ed: Mac Asay isn't even using it himself, just lecturing others what to do while working for Jeff Bezos]
  • Am I FLoCed? A New Site to Test Google's Invasive Experiment

    FLoC is a terrible idea that should not be implemented. Google’s experimentation with FLoC is also deeply flawed . We hope that this site raises awareness about where the future of Chrome seems to be heading, and why it shouldn't.

    FLoC takes most of your browsing history in Chrome, and analyzes it to assign you to a category or “cohort.” This identification is then sent to any website you visit that requests it, in essence telling them what kind of person Google thinks you are. For the time being, this ID changes every week, hence leaking new information about you as your browsing habits change. You can read a more detailed explanation here .

    Because this ID changes, you will want to visit often to see those changes.

  • The Brave browser basics: what it does, how it differs from rivals

    Boutique browsers try to scratch out a living by finding a niche underserved by the usual suspects. Brave is one of those browsers.

    Brave has gotten more attention than most alternate browsers, partly because a co-founder was one of those who kick-started Mozilla's Firefox, partly because of its very unusual — some say parasitical — business model.

Devices/Embedded Hardware

  • 3.5-inch SBC features Comet Lake-S

    Aaeon’s 3.5-inch Linux-ready “GENE-CML5” SBC supplies an up to octa-core 10th Gen Core CPU plus up to 64GB DDR4, 2x SATA, 2x GbE, 2x USB 3.2 Gen2, DP, VGA, M.2 M-key, and PCIe x4. Aaeon has posted a preliminary product page for what appears to be the first 3.5-inch SBC built around Intel’s 10th Gen Comet Lake-S. In fact, this is one of the first Comet Lake SBCs of any kind, following a few early entries like Portwell’s WADE-8212 Mini-ITX board.

  • Play your retro console on a modern TV
  • Olimex RP2040-PICO-PC “computer” to feature RP2040-Py Raspberry Pi Pico compatible module

    We previously wrote it was possible to create a Raspberry Pi RP2040 board with HDMI using DVI and programmable IOs to output video up to 640×480 at 60 Hz with the microcontroller’s Cortex-M0+ cores clocked at 252 MHz. At the time, we also noted Olimex was working on such a board with RP2040-PICO-PC designed to create a small Raspberry Pi RP2040 computer with HDMI/DVI video output. The Bulgarian company has now manufactured the first prototype, but due to supply issues with the Raspberry Pi Pico board, they also designed their own RP2040-PICO module since they’ve got a reel of Raspberry Pi RP2040 microcontrollers.

  • Our most complex Open Source Hardware board made with KiCad – the octa core iMX8 Quad Max – Tukhla is completely routed and now on prototype production

    We started this project June-July 2020. Due to the Covid19 the development took 10 months although only 6 month of active work was done, due to lock downs, ill developers and so on troubles.

    Now the board is completely routed and has these features: [...]