[fyi : most uaprofiles have no copyright notice or Apache License] I would have thought so, too. A lot of the Uaprofiles or data derived via OMA and other contributors were locked away by WURFL claiming "they own the copyright" all of a sudden, but I guess they also learned better now. It's a bit like entering "ver" in Windows: Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7601] Or extended forms including product IDs, etc. that is issued by Microsoft, with Linux (Android) etc. OEMs generally add their own information also on a desktop, but the information is known to a common public, so you can rarely speak of copyright of that information as such. It's a bit like a news item or sports results, see the similar rulings there agains companies who claimed some sort of copyright or ownership on Premiere League Fixtures.
Trademarks likely play a role, i.E. you wouldn't want to have a device call the OS vendor "Mycrosoft" instead of "Microsoft", also if let's say a device was counterfeit by some company, it could offer a different UA signature, too (or not, but then we couldn't tell it apart from the original, either) most other aspects of data seem best covered by a license like ODbl (that's what OpenDDR used) if nothing is stated one may assume the data is Public Domain as long as there are no claims. Werner On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Reza <[email protected]> wrote: > The only way to know if these ua-profiles are new devices and not random > noise is to somehow correlate them to real mobile web traffic. Thats going > to be challenging for several reasons: > > 1) ua-profiles do not contain any user-agent (or identification) > information. Infact, they seem to be getting more and more cryptic. > 2) This project does not have a good source of mobile web traffic logs. I > am not talking about getting logs from smaller websites, we need high > traffic logs which attract a variety of devices. > > So maybe its better the other way around. Rather than have ua-profiles > drive our device discovery, we should be using traffic logs to do it and > then hopefully match the devices back to their profiles that way... > > Regarding mobile devices, browsers, and OSes, yes, I totally agree. I > think the time where devices came stocked with a static OS and browser is > coming to an end. I dont think phones are going to be as flexible as > desktops, but assuming OS and browser based on device is likely a > misclassification. > > > ________________________________ > From: eberhard speer jr. <[email protected]> > To: "'[email protected]'" < > [email protected]> > Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 10:43 AM > Subject: Data > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Hi, > > quick update on the analyses of 'harvested' 'new' UaProfiles. > > Prelim. analyses turned up 2,048 *possible* new devices. > That number can only go down, but even if 10% comes thru further > testing...not bad. > > I can't say for sure, but I have noticed at least some of the devices > Reza added to JIRA. > > Other maybe important observation : > > Some OEMs or rather UaProfile 'publishers' [fyi : most uaprofiles have > no copyright notice or Apache License] update the uaprofile of a > device model when the Android version changes. > This seems to suggest, quite reasonably, the upgrade of the OS on a > 'same' affects more than just the os_version property... > I figure out [or try to] what if any those differences are and who and > if they are significant to us. > > If anything it shows a shift away from the "Device" aspect to the "OS" > and "Browser" aspects. > > esjr > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUAJGqAAoJEOxywXcFLKYcemgH/3scdZobFwCSFlZc+FAivjhr > NeUKvMhvtpjjmrviQWRuUFFTiZUQxMP/gO3J2X+oHBqO8uLAfcshCGmb4O/Hr0NJ > aKz0H+PeGPACnymCIQkpLRNKQ3jDefgTLTOW+rDFCHgXLo8ppICqO/M7Z7BOwSGa > t12pAh52fFLMO1NyN6LE4t77CiNXnQ5n/SJ2EoFpStxTftOME3PGRHb9i3m1iGqD > BDP8T9GDJaqoIjqfQ5uin8btdPeFOW5XnuEXV0Q7uf7IRkPQ0DXtzPIHZ1pYDU7b > IO3Mi/Ihb+lvHIvUB3uA3uj/0Y/TvrlXNTB19/pGjuKLCjIXuo3NirfmDcgAdec= > =ktMb > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
