or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google found distributing Oracle's Java code within Android project
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Google found distributing Oracle's Java code within Android project - Page 2

post #41 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150 View Post

Android does pride itself as the first to have "Copy and Paste" in a mobile OS.

Google's new motto: "CTRL-C, CTRL-V"

More like, ``CTRL-X, CTRL-V'' as it was a series of literally cut and pasted code.
post #42 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Google is likely in trouble because not only did it distribute the Code, but it used the code internally to help build the OS.

You do realize that the code brought in to question today had absolutely nothing to do with building the OS right? What's that? You didn't realize that? I never would've guessed.
Quote:
So, Google was likely borrowing Oracle's Code to save it time putting together a functional version of Android. Google likely started by creating the pretty GUI parts, but borrowed Oracle's code as the engine for testing and showcasing purposes. Google could test a working version of Android and slowly replace the borrowed code.

Totally uneducated (as in ignorant) guess. Google claims Dalvik was clean roomed and Daniel saying that it wasn't doesn't prove anything. Aside from that, you don't prototype the execution of Dalvik code in a Java VM any more than you execute iOS apps on a Blackberry.
Quote:
Since Google's use of Oracle's Code was essentially commercial in nature, it likely is in hot water. Borrowing Oracle's Code benefitted Google commercially because it probably saved Google a lot of time developing Android.

Exactly what code did Google "borrow" and place in to Android to save time? Android is open source so it should be rather easy for you to point to the offending code that supports your wild accusations. Don't worry though, Oracle has yet to point to any actually infringing code.
post #43 of 278
This really has happened before. Sun sued Microsoft for Java license violations way back in 1997, and Microsoft settled for $20 million in 2001. But Oracle owns Sun's IP now, and Larry Ellison won't settle for a measly few mil.

Larry wants blood. And he'll get it. The law suit requires all copies of Android to be "impounded and destroyed." Schmidt is getting out while the getting out is still good.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #44 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by dualaub2006 View Post

... Google claims Dalvik was clean roomed and Daniel saying that it wasn't doesn't prove anything. ...

It doesn't matter who wrote Dalvik, where it was written, or whether or not Google even cared that they were in violation of the Java License Agreement. You are either 100% compliant or you are in violation. Black and white.

The Java bytecode is converted into an alternate instruction set, then converted into Dalvik Executable (.dex) format. Why? Because Java and its boat-anchor of a JVM has always been a resource hog.

But who cares why Android uses a bastardized form of Java? It's still a violation of the license agreement. Black and white.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #45 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

This really has happened before

No, it hasn't happened before. Really. Microsoft "created" their own JavaVM to avoid paying Sun licensing fees. Dalvik is not a JavaVM. Apps compiled for J2ME will not run on Android. Really. MS JavaVM and Dalvik have nothing at all in common.

What Ellison wants and what Ellison gets will likely be two different things.
post #46 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

You don't need to show damages for copyright infringement. When the RIAA sues people downloading songs, it obtains huge judgements without showing damages. In those cases, it is impossible to show damages.

Google is likely in trouble because not only did it distribute the Code, but it used the code internally to help build the OS.

It did what manufacturers do with prototypes sometimes. For example, with a concept car generally only the body and interior are new designs. That is what the public sees. To show the concept in operation, companies will use underlining parts (generally their own parts) from other cars to make the vehicle functional. If the car is brought to market, then the borrowed parts are replaced by parts actually designed for the concept. Companies aren't going to design a concept product from the ground up just to show case a potential product.

So, Google was likely borrowing Oracle's Code to save it time putting together a functional version of Android. Google likely started by creating the pretty GUI parts, but borrowed Oracle's code as the engine for testing and showcasing purposes. Google could test a working version of Android and slowly replace the borrowed code.

Since Google's use of Oracle's Code was essentially commercial in nature, it likely is in hot water. Borrowing Oracle's Code benefitted Google commercially because it probably saved Google a lot of time developing Android.

I disagree with your car model, but I agree with your argument. They took the source code and distributed it as their own.
post #47 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

More like, ``CTRL-X, CTRL-V'' as it was a series of literally cut and pasted code.

You're a genius ahead of your time.
post #48 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post


But who cares why Android uses a bastardized form of Java? It's still a violation of the license agreement. Black and white.

Converting Java .class files to Dalvik executables is not prohibited by the Sun (Oracle) license.
You can code Java without paying a license fee to Oracle. You can compile Java without paying a license fee to Oracle. Converting to Dalvik executable is none of Oracle's business. The question is Dalvik and since you seem to have the answers all nailed down give Larry a call.
post #49 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

More like, ``CTRL-X, CTRL-V'' as it was a series of literally cut and pasted code.

If this were the case Android would have already been impounded and Oracle would have moved on to the Android handset manufacturers and the carriers.
post #50 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Android has largely replaced Oracle's Java ME as the target platform for mobile manufacturers who lack their own software platform, in part because licensing Oracle's Java costs money, while Google is offering Android for free.

Is this sentence a joke?
post #51 of 278
Quote:
Sometimes the sheer wrongness of what is posted on the web leaves us speechless. Especially when it’s picked up and repeated as gospel by otherwise reputable sites like Engadget. “Google copied Oracle’s Java code, pasted in a new license, and shipped it,” they reported this morning.

Sorry, but that just isn’t true.

Oops: No copied Java code or weapons of mass destruction found in Android

AppleInsider prefers to post 0-day debunked fairy tales about Android rather than reporting about something like the new proprietary screws put on Apple's devices, strange isn't it?
post #52 of 278
Since when did appleinsider turn from being the best source in apple rumours and news to just anti Google propaganda? Like another said why on earth do you make money running ads for Google products if you all hate them so much? Its a bit hypocritical!

These original junk was posted by a software patent activist - someone who is completely against the open invention group sticking up for the ludicrousy that is software patents. HE IS NOT A LAWYER OR DEVELOPER. He is about as qualified as a gold fish to interpret this. If you look on every other respectable tech blog you will see how this story is now being debunked.


Sent from my 'multiple patent infringing' nexus s. Damn it feels good typing on this thing. Oh yeah I can speak into any text field too with near perfect transcription. I wonder who I am infringing on with that.......
post #53 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

No, Google didn't use that code on Android never. This was a zip file from a 3rd party Open Handset Alliance used by them for testing before they submitted to Android code base. It's explained on Ars Technica post

You've given me the idea for a new site, if Google gets away with this then I'm going to make an open source video player and let people contribute movie files that they want to test.

The Pirate Bay will have nothing on this, maybe I should add a blog for copyright testers.

/sarcasm.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #54 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

You've given me the idea for a new site, if Google gets away with this then I'm going to make an open source video player and let people contribute movie files that they want to test.

The Pirate Bay will have nothing on this, maybe I should add a blog for copyright testers.

/sarcasm.

1. Analogy totally incorrect
2. Android didn't use those unit testing files
post #55 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

But who cares why Android uses a bastardized form of Java? It's still a violation of the license agreement. Black and white.

No, Android doesn't use any bastardized form of Java
post #56 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

1. Analogy totally incorrect
2. Android didn't use those unit testing files

I won't either and neither will any of my "testers", what a loophole you can publish anything you want, copyright holders be damned.

/sarcasm

Correct analogy, whether it's "accidental", "a third party", "wasn't used", "isn't required" or any of a myriad of excuses, the code WAS distributed, the distributor was Google and the copyright holder is Oracle and their permission is required.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #57 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

I won't either and neither will any of my "testers", what a loophole you can publish anything you want, copyright holders be damned.

/sarcasm

Correct analogy, whether it's "accidental", "a third party", "wasn't used", "isn't required" or any of a myriad of excuses, the code WAS distributed, the distributor was Google and the copyright holder is Oracle and their permission is required.

Incorrect analogy, the "movie" analogy to be distributed would be binary code, not source code publicly available from Sun and not used to build Android binaries. And yes, there is GPL violation because the headers were changed, but that's all.
post #58 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Reed View Post

From the articles I've read, the code in question wasn't part of any distributed version of Android. If this is true, then I don't see how Android can be found to infringe them.

If Google was distributing these files from their servers contrary to the original license the files were subject to, then that has nothing to do with Android.


Quote:
Originally Posted by veblen View Post

Can you explain further please? The brief snip of the license I saw in the article stated not to redistribute the code. Can't you have the files containing the code on your system? My understanding is that most source code repositories just link to existing files or copy them to new locations and track changes. Most also aid in distribution of the code, but distribution isn't always necessary. If the license says I can use the code but not redistribute it how am I violating the license by simply having the code in multiple locations and tracking changes to it? Wouldn't it be at the point at which I redistributed the code be where the license is violated?


As TBell Wisely Cited,

"You don't need to show damages for copyright infringement. When the RIAA sues people downloading songs, it obtains huge judgements without showing damages. In those cases, it is impossible to show damages.

Google is likely in trouble because not only did it distribute the Code, but it used the code internally to help build the OS. "

Mueller, by the way, is a strong open source advocate, besides being an intellectual property lawyer, He says that he has found "six more files" in Android that show the same pattern of direct copying as Oracle is complaining about from Sun's original Java code. The files form part of the Android 2.2 and 2.3 (Froyo and Gingerbread) code.

And what may prove extremely difficult for Google:

"In addition, I have identified 37 files marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" by Sun and a copyright notice file that says: "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE!" Those files appear to relate to the Mobile Media API of the Sun Java Wireless Toolkit. Unless Google obtained a license to that code (which is unlikely given the content and tone of those warnings), this constitutes another breach."

Mueller suggests - following up on some comments on Reddit and elsewhere - that some of the early Android developers might have used a decompiler on the Sun Java code in order to generate their own source code.

So the detective work began:

"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."... 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.... A copyright infringement is a copyright infringement, and if Google publishes code under a license for which it was never made available by its rightful owner, that's a serious legal problem.
post #59 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by HIMOKO View Post


And what may prove extremely difficult for Google:

"In addition, I have identified 37 files marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" by Sun and a copyright notice file that says: "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE!" Those files appear to relate to the Mobile Media API of the Sun Java Wireless Toolkit. Unless Google obtained a license to that code (which is unlikely given the content and tone of those warnings), this constitutes another breach."

Can you read Ars Technica and ZDNet articles?

Naive, retarded or ignorant? Well, I like people polite like you.
post #60 of 278
A note to AI. On breaking articles like these that are obviously going to cause a flame war to break out - how about tagging updates to the end of the article?

Regardless of which side of the argument you are on it would be nice to see updates as new information comes out.

Does anyone else agree?
post #61 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

Can you read Ars Technica and ZDNet articles?

Naive, retarded or ignorant? Well, I like people polite like you.

I read them, they provide an interesting TECHNICAL opinion, however what this involves is LEGAL opinion, did Google cause Oracles copyright files to be distributed without Oracles express permission?

Now as the files are/were freely available as part of Android repositories, then the most likely answer is "yes".

That's all Google had to do make the files available in order to infringe copyright.
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #62 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Reed View Post

From the articles I've read, the code in question wasn't part of any distributed version of Android. If this is true, then I don't see how Android can be found to infringe them.

If Google was distributing these files from their servers contrary to the original license the files were subject to, then that has nothing to do with Android.

If I wrote some source code, licensed it to Microsoft under terms that they not re-distribute it, and then Microsoft posted it to the web but didn't actually use it in any of their products, I couldn't then turn around and ask for a cut of Microsoft Office profits. One has nothing to do with the other.


Quote:
Originally Posted by veblen View Post

You mentioned that even if the only people who Google distributed the code to were bloggers who just analyzed it for copyright issues that Google was guilty. I agree, but in this scenario what financial damage did this do to Oracle and what did Google gain from the infringement? This just looks like a little nit picky error that lawyers are going to make a big deal about. Little mistakes like this happen all the time. To me this just makes Oracle look like a patent troll.


As TBell Wisely Cited,

"You don't need to show damages for copyright infringement. When the RIAA sues people downloading songs, it obtains huge judgements without showing damages. In those cases, it is impossible to show damages.

Google is likely in trouble because not only did it distribute the Code, but it used the code internally to help build the OS. "

"Google doesn't need to ship an actual product to be found liable for copyright infringement. The copying and distribution of the code is probably enough. Moreover, the issue likely will center around whether using the code benefitted Google in some commercial fashion."


Mueller, by the way, is " A STRONG OPEN SOURCE ADVOCATE, Besides Being INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWYER ", says that he has found "six more files" in Android that show the same pattern of direct copying as Oracle is complaining about from Sun's original Java code. The files form part of the Android 2.2 and 2.3 (Froyo and Gingerbread) code.

And what may prove extremely difficult for Google:

"In addition, I have identified 37 files marked as "PROPRIETARY/CONFIDENTIAL" by Sun and a copyright notice file that says: "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE!" Those files appear to relate to the Mobile Media API of the Sun Java Wireless Toolkit. Unless Google obtained a license to that code (which is unlikely given the content and tone of those warnings), this constitutes another breach."

Mueller suggests - following up on some comments on Reddit and elsewhere - that some of the early Android developers might have used a decompiler on the Sun Java code in order to generate their own source code.

So the detective work began:

"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."... 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.... A copyright infringement is a copyright infringement, and if Google publishes code under a license for which it was never made available by its rightful owner, that's a serious legal problem.
post #63 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by derekmorr View Post

Could someone please take DED's keyboard away before he embarrasses himself any further?

"After acquiring Android, Google decided to design Androids's virtual machine to run apps written in the Java language using the Java SE class library (take from Apache Harmony) using a modification of Sun's Java VM that the company believed would free it from having to pay Sun for a Java license in order to distribute it legally."

WRONG. The Android platform uses the Dalvik VM, which is not a Java Virtual Machine. It's not a modification of the JVM. The Dalvik VM has a different instruction set than the JVM. Dalvik is register-based; the JVM is stack-based.

Can't DED get the basic facts right? He should at least read the bloody Wikipedia page before banging out his fanboy screeds.

Go look in the archives DED has already mentioned this, he knows, like many others of the underlying architecture within the android project. Why should he (for your sakes) repeat himself ?
post #64 of 278
It appears a lot of you are non-programmers.
If I place code and package it (by what ever means), and the package is used, then there is a potential for any piece of code (in that package) to be used.
Let me simplify it, I have many subprograms/routines/methods/procs what ever, and I "compile" them, into a "package" and this package is then distributed, then Google are f&*%#d.
It doesn't matter whether the code is executed or not, it may have been in the past or it may be sitting there ready for a later implementation.
Larry must be rubbing his hands in glee, this is a BIG WIN for Oracle.
Although I think Oracle DBMS systems are rubbish, I should know I have to use them at work, and this itself is another long story.
See I don't have an underlying personal reasons in this, except I want Google to be hurt mighty bad, and take down that monsterous spawn called android.
post #65 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjw View Post

Since when did appleinsider turn from being the best source in apple rumours and news to just anti Google propaganda? Like another said why on earth do you make money running ads for Google products if you all hate them so much? Its a bit hypocritical!

These original junk was posted by a software patent activist - someone who is completely against the open invention group sticking up for the ludicrousy that is software patents. HE IS NOT A LAWYER OR DEVELOPER. He is about as qualified as a gold fish to interpret this. If you look on every other respectable tech blog you will see how this story is now being debunked.


Sent from my 'multiple patent infringing' nexus s. Damn it feels good typing on this thing. Oh yeah I can speak into any text field too with near perfect transcription. I wonder who I am infringing on with that.......

Wow you must be getting nervous.
Nexus s, is that like the 1, where about 6 people bought it ? No customer support what so ever.
Enjoy your piece of crap, and wow you can speak into a phone, I can do that too.
post #66 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Rabbit View Post

It appears a lot of you are non-programmers.
If I place code and package it (by what ever means), and the package is used, then there is a potential for any piece of code (in that package) to be used.
Let me simplify it, I have many subprograms/routines/methods/procs what ever, and I "compile" them, into a "package" and this package is then distributed, then Google are f&*%#d.
It doesn't matter whether the code is executed or not, it may have been in the past or it may be sitting there ready for a later implementation.
Larry must be rubbing his hands in glee, this is a BIG WIN for Oracle.
Although I think Oracle DBMS systems are rubbish, I should know I have to use them at work, and this itself is another long story.
See I don't have an underlying personal reasons in this, except I want Google to be hurt mighty bad, and take down that monsterous spawn called android.

The problem is that none of that code has been packaged or compiled
post #67 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post

A note to AI. On breaking articles like these that are obviously going to cause a flame war to break out - how about tagging updates to the end of the article?

Regardless of which side of the argument you are on it would be nice to see updates as new information comes out.

Does anyone else agree?

NO. I don't like your posts so I will not be helping you, its that simple.
post #68 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by veblen View Post

I think if the code existed in Google's repositories and people downloaded from there they are guilty of distributing some of Oracle's code in violation of their license. But what would the damages be? Don't you need to show that you were financially harmed to get a decent amount in damages? If the code wasn't widely distributed and wasn't actually used in the code that Google received money from how high could the damages really be?

This brings up an interesting point, since Google doesn't make any money from the operating system, except through advertising and the app store. How are damages determined? With all the revenue Google gets as a result of advertising and apps, it could end up being a very expensive lawsuit.

Not to forget the implementation of Android by other manufacturers, if Google ends up having to license it from Oracle, it could slow or stop the adoption, unless Google eats the fee itself.
post #69 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Rabbit View Post

Go look in the archives DED has already mentioned this, he knows, like many others of the underlying architecture within the android project. Why should he (for your sakes) repeat himself ?

No, DED doesn't know about Android architecture, he has said in the past that Android derived from java me and now that it uses a java vm
post #70 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

The problem is that none of that code has been packaged or compiled

So its sitting there as source, why ?
This makes no sense to me as a programmer.
When I develop I have source code (create/modify/compile/test) available to me, and then I implement it, by what ever means, and I end up with only object code.
No one lets source code float around in a production environment, this is insane.
I just don't get your points, am I missing something here ?
post #71 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gwydion View Post

No, DED doesn't know about Android architecture, he has said in the past that Android derived from java me and now that it uses a java vm

Oh yes he does, go and ask him yourself.
I consider him to be clued up and technically adept in understanding "foreign" architecture.
I even remember reading an article on his web site that explained all of this.
I think you are wrong on this one.
post #72 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Rabbit View Post

So its sitting there as source, why ?
This makes no sense to me as a programmer.
When I develop I have source code (create/modify/compile/test) available to me, and then I implement it, by what ever means, and I end up with only object code.
No one lets source code float around in a production environment, this is insane.
I just don't get your points, am I missing something here ?

Because the alleged files are:

1. Unit test files, they aren't packaged, they only serve to test the classes before compiling
2. A zip file with source files that aren't used anywhere, actually they can't be used because are java me files
post #73 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thinine View Post

This Engadget article has already been debunked. What a horrible story.

You say it was debunked like the ZDnet and Ars articles were conclusive. They weren't. It is obviously a complex issue and Nilay Patel from Engadget was looking at it from the legal perspective.

He even addressed both sides in his follow up:
Quote:
it prompted some extremely harsh technical rebuttals, like this one from ZDNet and this one from Ars Technica. The objections in short: the files in question are test files, aren't important, probably don't ship with Android, and everyone is making a hullabaloo over nothing.

We'll just say this straight out: from a technical perspective, these objections are completely valid. The files in question do appear to be test files, some of them were removed, and there's simply no way of knowing if any of them ended up in a shipping Android handset. But -- and this is a big but -- that's just the technical story. From a legal perspective, it seems very likely that these files create increased copyright liability for Google,
post #74 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by columbus View Post

You say it was debunked like the ZDnet and Ars articles were conclusive. They weren't. It is obviously a complex issue and Nilay Patel from Engadget was looking at it from the legal perspective.

He even addressed both sides in his follow up:

Unit test files can't be shipped in the build and the copyright infringement is changing the license from gplv2 to Apache license, not stealing code
post #75 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Rabbit View Post

Oh yes he does, go and ask him yourself.
I consider him to be clued up and technically adept in understanding "foreign" architecture.
I even remember reading an article on his web site that explained all of this.
I think you are wrong on this one.



Well, in this post helpful says that dalvik is a jvm when this is incorrect and I can find other article where he says that Android derived from java me
post #76 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeolian View Post

I wouldn't question Dan, but I've also noticed this a long time ago.

Most recently their annoying 'sound always on' adds... Thankfully only happened for one day. At least that I noticed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dualaub2006 View Post
Dan, with all of the Google hate when do you post the article taking Apple Insider to task for having Evo, Xoom and Chrome ads running on the site? I mean, if Google is the enemy and Android is an evil ripoff of iOS then why run ads for their stuff right?

It's all about putting your emotions into different compartments and not letting them interfere with each other and with your main business.

For more on that, you should read my business Bible: "What they Don't Teach You at Harvard Business School" by the late great Mark McCormack, founder of IMG and inventor of the whole Sports/TV Sponsorship idiom (which he started from scratch with just a $500 investment).
post #77 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by HahaHaha321 View Post

I never knew this was GoogleInsider. You'll need a new logo.

Anyway, since it doesn't "look good" for Google, I suppose they'll be run out of business, right? That'll happen.

Well, you and your ilk have been hoping for Apple to be run out of business for years. That didn't happen either so I guess you have a point.
post #78 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by veblen View Post

Can you explain further please? The brief snip of the license I saw in the article stated not to redistribute the code. Can't you have the files containing the code on your system? My understanding is that most source code repositories just link to existing files or copy them to new locations and track changes. Most also aid in distribution of the code, but distribution isn't always necessary. If the license says I can use the code but not redistribute it how am I violating the license by simply having the code in multiple locations and tracking changes to it? Wouldn't it be at the point at which I redistributed the code be where the license is violated?

They are re-distributing code in the source tree. The law couldn't care less, and doesn't know anything about compilation. This is a copyright infringement.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #79 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by robbydek View Post

This brings up an interesting point, since Google doesn't make any money from the operating system, except through advertising and the app store. How are damages determined? With all the revenue Google gets as a result of advertising and apps, it could end up being a very expensive lawsuit.

Not to forget the implementation of Android by other manufacturers, if Google ends up having to license it from Oracle, it could slow or stop the adoption, unless Google eats the fees itself.


If I Steal The Money and Distribute IT to Numerous Persons As GiveAway, Am I INNOCENT???????

Of Course NOT!

It Doesn't Matter Whether Google Make A Profit Out Of "IT " or NOT!!!!!!!!!!

What's The Point is "They Stole IT "!

And Some Core FanDroid Even Insists " PROUDLY " that,

" Android is already a money maker and a good one at that, and they are forecasting around $1B per year for android, not to shabby, google's $$$ is just fine "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


So Google NEVER CAN GET AWAY from " THIS "!
post #80 of 278
Quote:
Originally Posted by dualaub2006 View Post

You do realize that the code brought in to question today had absolutely nothing to do with building the OS right? What's that? You didn't realize that? I never would've guessed.

Totally uneducated (as in ignorant) guess. Google claims Dalvik was clean roomed and Daniel saying that it wasn't doesn't prove anything. Aside from that, you don't prototype the execution of Dalvik code in a Java VM any more than you execute iOS apps on a Blackberry.

Exactly what code did Google "borrow" and place in to Android to save time? Android is open source so it should be rather easy for you to point to the offending code that supports your wild accusations. Don't worry though, Oracle has yet to point to any actually infringing code.

Um, yes they did. See exhibit J on their last deposition.

Also, none of the recent code was unit tests. It was a security framework. The "expert" who claimed it was a unit test (on zdnet) was mis-directing.

I bet there are hundreds if violations. This case is a dead cert.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Google found distributing Oracle's Java code within Android project