Does Google Pin Copyright Violations On the ASF? 136
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 post proprietary and confidential (Score:5, Funny)
This post is proprietary and confidential. By accepting it, Slashdot agrees to not publish it to any third parties without my explicit permission. Violations of this contract will result in Commander Taco being legally bound to turn into a tunicate [wikipedia.org] for not less than 36 hour greater than the duration at which this post is made available to any unauthorized third parties.
You forgot the secret clause to make it binding: (Score:2)
[This post has been removed.]
Last edited by cdrtaco [slashdot.org] Friday January 21.
It was made up, too... (Score:3)
Ed Burnette dug down and found the code to be unused unit-tests and unused driver code, not shipped with android.
See Oops: No copied Java code or weapons of mass destruction found in Android [zdnet.com]
--dave
Re: (Score:2)
Ed Burnette dug down and found the code to be unused unit-tests and unused driver code, not shipped with android.
See Oops: No copied Java code or weapons of mass destruction found in Android [zdnet.com]
--dave
Mueller posted a rebuttal to that also, but it seems the upshot of his argument is that the code exists in the sourcetree (which of course has been acknowledged) and that while it doesn't appear to have been actually used in Android distributions (as per the make files) since it is unit test code, Burnette can't prove that Android distributions that do use that code in some form don't exist. So it seems he his now trying to go with a 'guilty until proven innocent' argument.
In his defence of Engadget's headl
Re: (Score:2)
This reminds me of the /bin/true shipped in Solaris: /bin/true
/* SVr4.0 1.4 */
bash-2.05$ cat
#!/usr/bin/sh
# Copyright (c) 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 AT&T
# All Rights Reserved
# THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T
# The copyright notice above does not evidence any
# actual or intended publication of such source code.
#ident "@(#)true.sh 1.6 93/01/11 SMI"
bash-2.05$
Yep, the empty program is "UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE". It
Re: (Score:2)
>Does Google Pin Copyright Violations On the ASF?
Does the Slashdots mess the grammarings over the interwebs?
I think this might be a US/British English thing, the grammar looks fine to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I'm British and living in the US. I still had to read it three times to work out which was the verb and which was the noun.
What service is 'Google Pin' anyway?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The grammar's fine. What it actually *means* is something else entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
[...] You know better than to feed the trolls slashdot...
Do you have ANY evidence to substantiate this?
Re: (Score:2)
AC sticks up for another AC. I wonder if they are the same AC.
Re: (Score:1)
AC sticks up for another AC. I wonder if they are the same AC.
Actually, all ACs are me. However I am also 93.2% of all logged in accounts too, so that doesn't help much. You may be one of the few exceptions but 'Cwix' does sound familiar, I'll have to check my list.
Re: (Score:2)
Who was s/he sticking up for? Looks like the GP was suggesting that there is no evidence that Slashdot knows better than to feed the trolls.
Re: (Score:3)
[...] You know better than to feed the trolls slashdot...
Do you have ANY evidence to substantiate this?
I would say there's quite a bit of counter-evidence, given how often trolls are fed around here...
Re: (Score:2)
This is a troll because there is no evidence that Google tried to pin anyone.
Google used the Apache Software License, which is not the same as attributing the code to the Apache Foundation. Then the apache foundation felt necessary to clarify the difference and did not "disown" the code, because no one said they owned it at all. They also clarified that using the ASL is encouraged and perfectly normal.
It is a lot like finding that Windows 2k was partially built with GNU make. No wrongdoing at all. Only a tr
Re:Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Google used the Apache Software License, which is not the same as attributing the code to the Apache Foundation.
Google had originally said that the code came from Apache Harmony (which Android Java libraries are derived from), which is attributing the code to ASF.
Re: (Score:1)
Just out of curiosity, would you like to actually address the contents of the linked article?
OK: OH NOES, Oracle wants to defend their implementation of Java setters and getters! I mean, what else could possibly explain code like this appearing in two places:
public int getDepth() {
return mDepth;
}
Clearly this is HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL code, especially since it implements a publicly documented interface in a transparently obvious way based on the specifications!
But seriously, the first file linked to in TFS is a bog-standard Java datastructure; you could give the specs to any reasonably c
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
Much of the code in question was also released by Oracle itself in the OpenJDK under the GPL V2. So, at worst Google is guilty of applying an ASF license to GPL licensed code.
Re: (Score:3)
So in that case, Oracle is actually the good guy here (for going after a GPL violation)?
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, I've recently discovered that some of the code in question has been pulled from the source repository, right around the time the lawsuit began. This is getting interesting...
Re: (Score:1)
Okay, I guess I'll trust the anonymous coward on Slashdot who singled out a single getter instead of the award-winning intellectual property lawyer and his article full of evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's "trollish" because this is Slashdot. On Slashdot, Google is automatically given the benefit of the doubt because they use Linux. Seriously, that's why.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
o_O Please don't feed Slashdot to the trolls!
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than refute his arguments, you call him a troll and cite the anonymity of the submitter (as if anonymous submitters don't submit pro-Google stories), which got you an instant +5 Insightful.
Can you actually refute his arguments rather than calling him names?
Re: (Score:2)
Got any evidence to back your claim that he's a troll?
I am confused. (Score:4, Interesting)
If I publish a book that has a section with someone else's copyright notice printed in it, can I blame the person who holds that copyright for any issues it causes? And if not, why can Google do it?
Re: (Score:1)
Who was talking about copyrights extended beyond an author's life? They were republishing books from authors WHO WERE alive.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure blame is the right word, however it's entirely possible that Google has a copyright assignment agreement with the ASF. If this is the case, they may simply be putting an ASF copyright header at the top of Android source files, with the assumption that people at the ASF will pick up any that are actually useful and incorporate them into their codebases. This would mean that the ASF actually does own the subset of this code that Google has the right to assign (i.e. the stuff that isn't owned by
"Licensed" not "Assigned Ownership" (Score:2)
... however it's entirely possible that Google has a copyright assignment agreement with the ASF. If this is the case, they may simply be putting an ASF copyright header at the top of Android source files, with the assumption that people at the ASF will pick up any that are actually useful and incorporate them into their codebases. This would mean that the ASF actually does own the subset of this code that Google has the right to assign ...
An AC posted a header. If accurate it seems to license not assign ownership:
"Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more contributor license agreements."
Re:I am confused. (Score:5, Interesting)
From the referenced ASF blog:
Recent reports on various blogs have attributed to the ASF a number of the source files identified by Oracle as ones that they believe infringe on their copyrights. The code in question has an header that mentions Apache, and perhaps that is the source of the confusion. The code itself is using a license that is named after our foundation, is in fact the license that we ourselves use. Many others use it too, as the license was explicitly designed to allow such uses. Even though the code in question has an Apache license, it is not part of Harmony. PolicyNodeImpl.java is simply not a Harmony class.
That's all. No "blaming" involved on Google's part. No "disowning" on ASF's part. Just one annoying blogger trying for ad impressions.
Re:I am confused. (Score:5, Informative)
Since Slashdotters have more than once tried to dismiss this guy as some troll or just some blogger, perhaps you should do a little research. Florian Muller [wikipedia.org] is the founder of the NoSoftwarePatents [nosoftwarepatents.com] campaign, fighting the EU's directive on the patentability of computer-related inventions, which they eventually rejected. He's received several awards for his intellectual property activism and is considered one of the most influential in the field.
But yeah, because this is a potentially negative Google submission, people around here are going to attack the messenger and try to dismiss him outright, because they're biased toward pro-Linux companies like Google. This site's comment section is becoming a real trash heap.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither his stance on Google nor the tone of the article have anything to do with my comment. Instead, it's based on a portion of his post being factually incorrect. So blatantly incorrect I don't see how he could have missed it -- which leads me to thinking that it was intentional.
But yeah, because this is a potentially negative Google submission, people around here are going to attack the messenger and try to dismiss him outright, because they're biased toward pro-Linux companies like Google. This site's comment section is becoming a real trash heap.
For the record, I'm not a huge fan of google, and I gave up on u
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot was a trash heap from the very beginning.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I like how you left off the part about him lying to the EU commission about the effect on MySQL during the Oracle buyout of Sun:
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20091204095942328 [groklaw.net]
When the FSF's Eblen Moglen has to side with Oracle against his FUD, clearly something is up.
Florian set up a FUD campaign against IBM in the TurboHercules:
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100408153953613 [groklaw.net]
Pamela Jones stated "It seems Groklaw will have to open a new category,
Re:I am confused. (Score:4, Informative)
Google does have serious problems with Android, mainly because Oracle owns a lot of patents relating to virtual machines. Microsoft ended up paying $700million or so because of that, for C#. It will not be easy for the Android creators to get out of it.
(Note: if you're going to reply telling me that Microsoft had to pay because they were copying Java, you are right, but please go find some links talking about Sun's other lawsuit over C# and inform yourself before replying).
Re: (Score:3)
please go find some links talking about Sun's other lawsuit over C#
Was there an actual lawsuit over this? IIRC, all that is known is that Microsoft pays a certain undisclosed amount to Sun/Oracle over some Java patents, which, supposedly, pertain to CLR - without any lawsuit (which would actually be a good hint that Sun's JVM patents are solid).
Re: (Score:2)
They distributed code that is owned by someone else, against their wishes. HOWEVER - the damages are not likely to be very big, because Oracle is still distributing the same code for free.
That sort of argument didn't work well for Kevin Mitnik. He still went to prison.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't eveil if it benefits Google (Score:4, Funny)
Another example of what "do no evil" really means: if Google benefits it isn't evil, right? Pretty amazing and inept theft of IP on Google's part and for being this inept and stealing so blatantly, Oracle will get billions. Shame that we Android users will have to pay for Google's theft.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should Android users have to pay for Google's mistakes? I'm thinking more along the lines of:
1. Google releases code that's not theirs
2. Google profits massively from Android, users profit massively from Android
3. Google gets caught, pays bunch of fines and whatever it needs to to be allowed to continue use of the code
4. Users continue to profit, Google's profits from Android are diminished just a little bit
5. The whole issue is forgotten and life goes on as Android users continue to profit
I'm gonna go
Re: (Score:1)
I'm gonna go hug my CyanogenMod7 powered Desire now... :)
I'm gonna throw my Droid in the toilet [slashdot.org]. Wait, I don't own a Droid =P
Re: (Score:3)
Be happy. I went through that same crap with the Motorola Milestone before getting my Desire. Six months of misery... makes freedom taste all the sweeter ;)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm gonna throw my Droid in the toilet. Wait, I don't own a Droid =P
That's too bad because the Droid isn't locked. The Droid was actually pushed out by Google to Android developers. So if you were to throw a Droid down the toilet you wasted a perfectly good, unlocked, fully rootable, Android device.
Re: (Score:2)
1. are there any android devices to date that aren't rootable? yes maybe there are, but saying the device is rootable doesn't make it especially unique or suited for development.
2. what exactly does unlocked mean when the only droids produced are on verizon's non-standard CDMA network? you can't use a droid anywhere except verizon. and by the way, "droid" is a trademark of verizon wireless.
Re: (Score:2)
are there any android devices to date that aren't rootable? yes maybe there are, but saying the device is rootable doesn't make it especially unique or suited for development.
The Droid has built in facilities to allow for rooting and loading of custom ROMS. No exploits are required. There is a difference between requiring an exploit and leveraging a built-in facility.
As for the answer to your question, yes, there are some Android devices which are not rootable.
As for unlocked, I didn't mean carrier locked. I mean hardware locked - as in, it doesn't have one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but let's just hope Google throws money at them until they say yes :p
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know, the allegedly infringing sections could be rewritten cleanly...
Re: (Score:1)
I believe that it goes more like this. Iif Google violated terms I believe the courts will determine the value of that violation and make Google pay. A company that refuses to license you something that you accidentally use doesn't get to determine what you will pay. Google simply has to leave it up to the courts to decide what that value is and they won't necessarily use the numbers the company says it is worth. In the case of people violating the GPL the value courts have ruled is $0. They essentially get
Re: (Score:2)
Google profits massively from Android
And you have proof of this from where? Because according to their own financial statements they say otherwise. 96.5% of their revenue comes from adsense programs and from Google-owned websites. The other 3.5% comes from "other sources" which are primarily interest off of investments.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone from Google stated that Android was profitable a few months ago. At Google, I'm guessing profitable doesn't mean pennies... :)
Re: (Score:2)
But their motto wasn't "do no evil", it was "don't be evil". Big difference.
Re: (Score:2)
How is open source to blame for the demise of sun? Sun just failed to utilize open source profitably. If they had tried to sell java in every market, it would have never become the standard it is today. Different management could have made a world of difference with profits from support, consultation etc.
Re: (Score:1)
This is a downside to hiring only really smart overachiever type employees.
Yeah, they get so caught up in creating something new, useful, or revolutionary that they often forget to pay their bribes, purchase a thought license, or even beg for permission from their masters. For shame.
How will our society ever continue on if people are allowed to just create things willy-nilly? There have to be strict legal limits, dammit! Creating new products should be like navigating a booby trapped maze blind-folded, where the slightest slip up means an excruciatingly painful death, and wher
No they do not (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The troll is paid by MSFT to create fud around patents, and more recently, Android. He is a whore and a pox.
Re: (Score:2)
The files say that they are from the ASF. Did you bother to even read the article and look at the files before you posted?
Post title (Score:1)
I have no idea what the hell the post title here has to do with the story. There's no indication that Google's blaming the ASF for anything, in any of the primary reporting on the story.
STUPID (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's stupid, but not for the reason you suggest. Oracle's attack on Google's use of Java is based on patents. Copyright issues are peripheral and cannot prevent use of Java, they will at most further line the pockets of lawyers and require some clean room rewrites. To put it another way, copyright does not protect ideas, only the expression of them. Either Sun's expression of Java ideas is not the only one in which case a rewrite is possible, or it is the only possible expression in which case the expre
Re: (Score:2)
That said, the stupidest thing of all would be for Google to continue to rely solely on Java for Android while C++ is significantly more efficient and significantly less of a patent minefield. Of course there are stupid people at Google, or more accurately, people who consistently do stupid things for whatever reason (as far as I'm concerned, a stupid person) and it comes down to, who calls the shots and how stupid is he?
IMO, using Java and Linux was a brilliant strategy to get Android off the ground quickly and to have a critical mass of experienced developers from the start. However, now that it's established, Google can begin damping down the significance of Java and allow it to be more language neutral.
Movement away from total reliance on Java (or the Dalvik JVM) is already underway. It is (as of 2.3 - Gingerbread) possible to implement apps completely in C/C++ without writing any Java. http://android-developers.blogsp [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It is (as of 2.3 - Gingerbread) possible to implement apps completely in C/C++ without writing any Java.
But the C++ application still runs under Java so somebody is still stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
It is (as of 2.3 - Gingerbread) possible to implement apps completely in C/C++ without writing any Java.
But the C++ application still runs under Java so somebody is still stupid.
That somebody is beginning to sound a lot like you.
The C++ applications run natively (as in, not on top of Java). In NDK v5, ONLY when services provided by the Dalvik JVM are needed do they go through the JNI layer. C++ apps have full native access to the linux kernel services and in effect, run ALONGSIDE the Dalvik JVM. This really provides the best of both worlds. Apps with simple user interaction that don't require high performance can stick with the simpler Java APIs, while apps that require high perfo
Re: (Score:2)
It is (as of 2.3 - Gingerbread) possible to implement apps completely in C/C++ without writing any Java.
But the C++ application still runs under Java so somebody is still stupid.
That somebody is beginning to sound a lot like you.
Sorry, it's not. I quote: "Of course, access to the regular Android API still requires Dalvik, and the VM is still present in native applications, operating behind the scenes".
So, months after being sued by Oracle, C++ is still joined at the hip to Java on Android. It should have been set free the next day. Stupid. Or more accurately, fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
It is (as of 2.3 - Gingerbread) possible to implement apps completely in C/C++ without writing any Java.
But the C++ application still runs under Java so somebody is still stupid.
That somebody is beginning to sound a lot like you.
Sorry, it's not. I quote: "Of course, access to the regular Android API still requires Dalvik, and the VM is still present in native applications, operating behind the scenes".
So, months after being sued by Oracle, C++ is still joined at the hip to Java on Android. It should have been set free the next day. Stupid. Or more accurately, fucking stupid.
I don't know why I'm wasting my time responding to this because you're obviously don't know what you are talking about.
First, the NDK compiles the C/C++ code down to native ARM binaries. Yes, the VM is still in control, but the binaries run at the full speed of the processor. Accessing the standard Android API obviously still has to go through the VM via JNI for now, but as I stated, the direction of the NDK is to expose more and more services without going through the Android API. For instance, NDK r5 e
Re: (Score:2)
You imagine I was not fully aware of every detail you just regurgitated. The fact remains, Android still ties C++ to Java, needlessly. Which is stupid. And I am beginning to think that the same should be said of you, even though your heart is in the right place.
Re: (Score:2)
Daniel, you're starting to sound like the people who go on LKML and ask why the Kernel can't be rewritten in another language. I'm sure you understand that is crazy. Much like Linux's 8 million lines of code, Android is large at 11 million lines of code. All of the libraries and services a native app might use are not going to be rewritten in a point release. How else would you expect the system to work right now except as a mixed mode?
I personally detest Java, and would rather use either C++ or a real
Re: (Score:2)
One has to be a realist.
You're not going to impress me exaggerating by the difficulty of doing this or that with a computer, especially when it comes to interpreters and especially when it comes to execution environments. Conversion of large Java code bases to C++ is largely mechanical, and in this case, only a small fraction of the code needs to be converted to remove the tie between native applications and Java. Here is the reality: smart people can do stuff like that. Stupid people just bleat about the difficulty ad nauseum.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope that someday everything on Android is handled through kernel interfaces and native libraries
By the way, you must be aware that it already is? Java/Dalvik does all its IO including all device control by JNI calls. Exactly the same API calls a native binary makes, except twisted through the incredibly barfacious JNI API.
Licenses seem incorrect... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [java2s.com]. 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 [mobile-utopia.com].
Some sources seem to come from here [mobile-utopia.com], where some of the files (e.g., Control.java) 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.
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not an expert either, but he points out that J2SE 5.0 has the "proprietary" copyright notices while 6 has GPL notices, but that 5.0 is relevant for the time. I didn't see a specific date mentioned for when the alleged violations occurred, but Google announced Android on Nov 5, 2007 (while the first handset to use it, the T-Mobile G1 aka HTC Dream, was released on Sep 23, 2008). J2SE 6 (which apparently has GPL notices) was released Dec 11, 2006 (nearly a year before Google released the first SDK for A
Re: (Score:3)
Note that Apache is NOT GPLv2 compatible.
Re: (Score:2)
However, it looks like several of the sources come from Sun's mmademo, linked here [java2s.com]. In this rendition of the document, each source file's license is a permissive one by Sun (i.e., not proprietary / confidential).
Indeed, I just compared two files from the /test/mmademo/src/example/mmademo/ directory inside the MMAPI.zip file with the linked source code and indeed it seems like they are the exact same files with a different license header.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, keep in mind that not only that Apache is not GPLv2 compatible, but the decompilation was from an old pre-OpenJDK version of Java.
Headline is terribly misleading (Score:2)
Just because the code was allegedly re-licensed under the Apache license doesn't mean Apache had anything to do with it. That would be like claiming the FSF is responsible for all code released under the GPL. As already noted, the files in question were not part of the Harmony code base, so I don't understand how anyone could see this as Google "pinning copyright violations on ASF".
Sounds like someone definitely f**ked up though.
I hope their "Unladen Swallow" project succeeds, so they can port everything to
So... he greped? (Score:1)
How can this be proven anyway? (Score:2)
Suppose I grab a copy of some of Oracle's propriety licensed source code, and change the header to attribute the copyright to me and change the date to a prior date. How can Oracle conclusively prove that they didn't steal the code from me?
For that matter, who's to say that some of Oracle's source code wasn't lifted from some other OSS project with the headers changed?
The idea that simply placing "Copyright (c) 1995, mswhippingboy" in the header of a file seems like pretty flimsy evidence either way to me
Re: (Score:2)
If you can convince 12 people off the street (a jury) that copying took place, then you can win googlebucks in a lawsuit.
Juries are strange and unpredictable.
Engineer binary thinking gets its ass kicked in court all the time by word-painting artists (lawyers and their experts).
It's a high stakes crapshoot.
The big deal is not "pinning on ASF" (Score:1)
The big deal is this:
From the beginning, some others believed that the Android developers had utilized a decompiler. I read about that theory on a couple of different websites, especially reddit.com. When I looked into this case again, I downloaded a Java decompiler named JAD. And when I decompiled PolicyNodeImpl.class from J2SE 5.0, the result was pretty much the same source code as Android's PolicyNodeImpl.java code (which Oracle presented in its Exhibit J). My "PolicyNodeImpl synopsis" document shows the similarities.
I then performed the same comparison for six other files in the adjacent "acl" subdirectory. The Android versions of those files are available on the Web (Android version 2.2 aka "Froyo", Android version 3.0 aka "Gingerbread"). My synopsis PDF files document the same problem: Android contains, under the Apache license, code that is essentially just decompiled code of Oracle/Sun software that was never licensed to Apache.
Interestingly, PolicyNodeImpl.java (the file used by Oracle in its Exhibit J) appears not to have been part of the most recent Android distributions, while the six other files I identified are part of the two most recent and presently most relevant distributions: Froyo (Android 2.2) and Gingerbread (Android 2.3). That makes those files even more important than the one Oracle presented.
The old story about one decompiled class was made not quite relevant by the fact that it was not part of the OS itself, but some supporting code that is easily removed. Now, though, it turns out that vendors have shipped decompiled proprietary Sun/Oracle code on numerous Android-based devices, courtesy of Google. That will not look good in the court at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the helpful post.
Google copycatting will cost them Googlebucks.
But not too many (Score:2)
Google copycatting will cost them Googlebucks.
Tom Callaway has done tremendous work cleaning up the Chromium codebase and one of the things he found is that Google just grabs stuff without thinking [livejournal.com].
They say things like they need to fork, they can't use existing versions, they need to copy code wholesale into their codebase, etc. He's proven them wrong on those counts by systematically replacing all their half-baked crap with system libraries. They don't seem to regard licenses very highly either.
The same
Re: (Score:3)
Not so helpful after all [slashdot.org], I'm sorry to say.
Open letter to Oracle (Score:2)
Dear Oracle,
As a long-time customer of both Oracle and Sun, as well as a professional Java developer and an Android user, I have a request to make of you.
Please stop being douchebags.
Sincerely,
Me
Re: (Score:2)
Not a Smoking Gun (Score:3)
"A close look at the actual files and accompanying documentation, however, suggest that it's not a simple case of copy and paste. The infringing files are found in a compressed archive in a third-party component supplied by SONiVOX, a member of Google's Open Handset Alliance (OHA). SONiVOX, which was previously called Sonic, develops an Embedded Audio Synthesis (EAS) framework and accompanying Java API wrappers which it markets as audioINSIDE."
It's not clear how the zip file got included in the AOSP, but it's obvious that it wasn't intended to be there and isn't actually used by Android in any capacity. Android is using SONiVOX's EAS code, but doesn't use or need the MMAPI wrapper. This incident is very clearly not a case of Android stealing code from Sun or J2ME. It's a handful of test cases from an unrelated and publicly available Sun reference implementation that got uploaded by accident to AOSP in a zip archive supplied by a third party. It's a tacky mistake, but it's hardly serious or damaging. At worst, it warrants a takedown notice. It's certainly not a smoking gun as one might assume when viewing the code out of context.
Maybe an honest mistake? (Score:2)
damages? (Score:2)
if there's guilt, it seems that the files involved are essentially insignificant in the context of android. does that factor into damages? is guilt here all or nothing? is stealing 100 lines of stolen source code the same as 1 million? common sense would say no but of course the laws here aren't common sense.
Re: (Score:2)
They could have avoided this potentially damning evidence by simply having one developer review the source code
It's not damning evidence because it has nothing to do with the patents at the center of the case. However it is worth remembering that this is SCO's lawyer we're dealing with here and he will no doubt attempt to spin it into something it isn't. SCOracle.