Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Google Oracle The Courts Apache Your Rights Online

Does Google Pin Copyright Violations On the ASF? 136

Posted by Soulskill
from the plot-thickens dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Florian Mueller claims to have produced new evidence that he believes supports Oracle's case against Google on the copyright side of the lawsuit. Oracle originally presented one example to the court, and that file was found to have been part of older Android distributions, with an Apache license header. Mueller has just published six more files of that kind and believes the Apache Software Foundation will disown those just like the first one because those were never part of the Apache Harmony code base. Furthermore, various source files from the Sun Java Wireless Toolkit were found in the Android codebase, containing a total of 38 copyright notices that mark them as proprietary and confidential, but Google apparently published their source code regardless."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Does Google Pin Copyright Violations On the ASF?

Comments Filter:
  • Really? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Spykk (823586) on Friday January 21, 2011 @12:59PM (#34954750)
    Another "anonymous" submission linking to this troll's blog? You know better than to feed the trolls slashdot...
  • by Jahava (946858) on Friday January 21, 2011 @01:26PM (#34955296)

    In Florian's paper, he points these out as Sun PROPRIETARY / CONFIDENTIAL. However, it looks like several of the sources come from Sun's mmademo, linked here []. In this rendition of the document, each source file's license is a permissive one by Sun (i.e., not proprietary / confidential).

    The ones from microedition seem to be mentioned elsewhere under GPL [].

    Some sources seem to come from here [], where some of the files (e.g., have the proprietary markings, but these are interfaces. Control, for example, is an empty interface. Not sure if that affects anything.

    I'm not qualified to make any sense out of this, but it seems like several of the sources Florian mentions are actually GPL'd sources with incorrect headers. There are a few trivial ones that (in the source I found) seem to be correctly marked proprietary. As much as I admire Florian's ability to grep, I think he's just found an error in some headers, not actual violations.

"You're a creature of the night, Michael. Wait'll Mom hears about this." -- from the movie "The Lost Boys"