Google vs. the DOJ, GPL 3, Mashup Camp and CRAP...(The Dan and David Show)

Google vs. the DOJ, GPL 3, Mashup Camp and CRAP...(The Dan and David Show)

Summary: In this latest episode of the Dan & David Show we look into Google's refusal to provide search logs to the government and at the forthcoming (in 2007) version of the GPL version 3. We also discuss the latest moves from Oracle to make its next-generation architecture and applications suite, Fusion, a reality.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Oracle
4

In this latest episode of the Dan & David Show we look into Google's refusal to provide search logs to the government and at the forthcoming (in 2007) version of the GPL version 3. We also discuss the latest moves from Oracle to make its next-generation architecture and applications suite, Fusion, a reality. At this point it's a massive functional spec with the a complete suite of new applications to be written and thoroughly tested  in the next two years. What are the odds? Also, Oracle appears to have its sights set on hosted services. In addition, David provides a new acroynm for DRM--CRAP--and an update on Mashup Camp. The podcast can be delivered directly to your desktop or MP3 player if you're subscribed to our podcasts (See ZDNet’s podcasts: How to tune in).  For more the topics covered during the show, search our blog

Topic: Oracle

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

4 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Error on download mp3 file

    Trying to download this file yields error, please correct.
    stjson
    • Fixed!!!

      Sorry about that. Operator error (mea culpa!)

      db
      dberlind
  • factual error: not child pornography

    The DOJ's subpoenas are in support of their case to uphold the so-called "Defense of Children Act" which requires libraries and other places of public Internet access to filter content so that children can't accidentally view ?explicit? adult content. This has nothing to do with child pornography, only with restricting what Internet content children may have default access to.

    The Act is before the courts now because its wording is so sloppy that just what content should be restricted is very uncertain. Should breast self-examination videos on health sites be filtered-out because teenage boys might find them titillating -- even though that knowledge could be vital to teenage girls? And what about "explicit" instructions for safer sex guidelines?

    These subpoenas to the major search providers are not to hunt down child pornographers, but merely to provide support for a very questionable censorship law.
    bradhansen9
  • A valuble asset

    Perhaps that don't really trust how far that information will go and what particular competitor will end up with a free copy. Not to mention they are currently attempting to provide a deeper level of service that requires the end user to trust their privacy to google, so this attack represents the ideal circumstance for microsoft, disrupting google's business plans by eliminating the implied trust to maintain privacy between the user and google (a real loss to google hundreds of millions of dollars).
    rtb