Google found distributing Oracle's Java code within Android project

1356714

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 272
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 42 of 272
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,789member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 43 of 272
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,789member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 44 of 272
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 45 of 272
    aeolianaeolian Posts: 189member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 46 of 272
    aeolianaeolian Posts: 189member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 47 of 272
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 48 of 272
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 49 of 272
    aluopaluop Posts: 57member
    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?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 50 of 272
    sensisensi Posts: 346member
    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?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 51 of 272
    tjwtjw Posts: 216member
    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.......
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 52 of 272
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 53 of 272
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    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
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 54 of 272
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    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
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 55 of 272
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 56 of 272
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 57 of 272
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 58 of 272
    gwydiongwydion Posts: 1,083member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 59 of 272
    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?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 60 of 272
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    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.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.