Slashdot Mirror
Google Didn't Ship Relicensed Java Code After All
RedK writes "In a follow up to yesterday's news about Google apparently relicensing confidential Oracle code found in Java under the ASL, it seems that the blogger who initially reported the issue was plain wrong, as the files he indicated were in breach of Oracle's copyright do not actually ship with Android. Google has also deleted many of these files, which were mostly used as unit tests."
So they're just distributing copyrighted files?
Hardly sounds much better.
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
If Google distributed the source at any point, it's a copyright violation, whether or not it shipped in a handset.
I see nothing in that article claiming that the files did ship. That said, they could certainly break the "Chinese wall" that's supposed to exist for "clean room" implementations and could still violate copyright by being distributed as code, even if they're not distributed on phones.
Mind you, I'm taking Google's side on this because the files are pretty minor (empty interfaces, etc.) and I'm not too sure that Google put them there, but we should be careful to keep a clean house here and remove any such crap before Oracle goes suing over it.
I'll do a couple of follow-up posts on my blog these days to respond to some of the misconceptions and misinformation out there.
My blog never made a specific claim about Android devices containing certain code. From a copyright law point of view, however, putting software online for everyone to download means "to distribute", or "to ship", such code, and distributing, or shipping, infringing code makes someone liable.
Ed Burnette, whose post is referenced here, does not seem to understand even basic copyright-related terminology and concepts. He's wrong on almost everything he wrote and I'll debunk itI already left some comments below his article.
It's also wrong, as stated above, that Google "deleted" those files. They are still in the Froyo (Android 2.2) and Gingerbread (2.3) trees. At least they were when I last checked, which was yesterday. They are just not in the tree for future versions.
There is so much out there that's wrong, and I'll deal with it step by step.
this is pure speculation but...
one wonders whether Eric Schmidt's (former Sun executive) and his very probable push for Java on Android was not behind his resignation. From any angle Android's Java reliance seams like a bad move.
it seems that the blogger who initially reported the issue was plain wrong
Florian Mueller produced two blatantly erroneous stories in about as many days. I hope this high error rate keeps Slashdot from promiscuously posting his stuff for a while. I'm not counting on miracles, but this guy was given two chances on Slashdot and he blew it badly each time. Even if Slashdot's goal is to troll for eyeballs, they can find someone more competent to do the trolling.
I hope Google gets its way on court, scales up the Dalvik VM and we stop using anything coming from Oracle. Tomcat would run happily on it and we would use a completely Free/Free/No patents virtual machine. Kind of like they are doing with WebM. That would result in companies becoming really careful when trying to take open source code and screw up with it.
When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."
Yes, they are liable, but liable for what? What damages case can you make for files that aren't actually used?
Fines/Damages/Fees/"Whatever your legal system calls it" usually depend on how often you copied it and what money you made from it.
So if there are only those files, all they did was making them available in the source code repository, so that might be some large one-time sum.
If that code was in every single android device or only many android devices had code somehow based on this one or derived from it or otherwise extending the copyright of those file to what is shipped with those devices, then Oracle could have hope to get some money for every single Android devices shipped. Both from google and from the manufacturers, who might want to get that money back from google.
I think this difference is relevant.
found in the unit test area? Does that mean EMI (who owns the copyrights for the Beatles songs) could sue Google for copyright violation and get a percentage for each android handset even though the song "All You Need is Love" is not used in Android in any way whatsoever?
this seems like a perfectly valid counter to the zdnet piece:
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/21/android-source-code-java-and-copyright-infringement-whats-go/
From a legal perspective, it seems very likely that these files create increased copyright liability for Google, because the state of our current copyright law doesn't make exceptions for how source code trees work, or whether or not a script pasted in a different license, or whether these files made it into handsets. The single most relevant legal question is whether or not copying and distributing these files was authorized by Oracle, and the answer clearly appears to be "nope" -- even if Oracle licensed the code under the GPL. Why? Because somewhere along the line, Google took Oracle's code, replaced the GPL language with the incompatible Apache Open Source License, and distributed the code under that license publicly. That's all it takes -- if Google violated the GPL by changing the license, it also infringed Oracle's underlying copyright. It doesn't matter if a Google employee, a script, a robot, or Eric Schmidt's cat made the change -- once you've created or distributed an unauthorized copy, you're liable for infringement.*
I really don't understand this bias against Oracle.
If any other company was the victim of a GPL violation, for whatever reason and whereever the code was distributed, Slashdot would cry foul. I guess as long as it's done to Oracle, it's OK.
It doesn't matter if you distribute the code as part of a product that makes money or if you use it internally. If you slap an Apache license header on GPL code, you're violating the GPL. Copyright law doesn't require you to make money in order to infringe. Why do you think the RIAA is going after P2P users and getting massive settlements?
This space left intentionally blank.
My blog never made a specific claim about Android devices containing certain code.
That's not what your blog post reads like. If they're not part of the codebase used on an Android device, you should have explicitly stated so, seeing as quite obviously "The Android versions of those files" by default suggests that those files are a part of the Android OS.
Maybe you can admit you were wrong or at the very least unclear in certain places, rather than quite childishly trying to bullshit your way out of this?
It's also wrong, as stated above, that Google "deleted" those files. They are still in the Froyo (Android 2.2) and Gingerbread (2.3) trees. At least they were when I last checked, which was yesterday. They are just not in the tree for future versions.
That's kind of how source repositories work when you delete things.
Statutory damages, probably. "The basic level of damages is between $750 and $30,000 per work," but "statutory damages are only available in the United States for works that were registered with the Copyright Office prior to infringement." If they can't claim statutory damages, they would probably only be able to claim either lost earnings, or whatever profit Google made from the infringing distribution, neither of which are likely to add up to very much.
The fact Google redistributed the files in their own source repo is legally bad, no?
MilkMiruku
Moderators - don't be idiots - Florian Mueller is one of the principal parties to this particular portion of this tempest in a teapot. You CAN'T simply "troll" mod him out of existence. Posting AC as I'm moderating, although not his post.
Please name one Android device that ships with this code.
I'm looking for clarity regarding the impact of any possible infringement. Willful infringement of code central to Android devices could stop shipments. Incidental infringement of peripheral code is another matter. It should be resolved, of course, but would have little impact on the market.
Do Android devices contain infringing code? Do they contain infringing code that could be easily replaced? Or do they contain infringing code that is central to their operation?
The question is whether distributing GPLd source code, without including it in a binary, constitutes legal use of the GPLd source code.
Everything I have heard Stallman say indicates that it IS legal. One can distribute GPLd code on the same web page as non-GPLd or proprietary code. Nor is there any intrinsic difference between including the GPLd code on a web page or in a source tree when the GPLd code is not compiled into the resulting binary.
Florian Mueller confuses distribution of GPLd code, which is often legal, with incorporation of GPLd code in a proprietary product, which is not.
$30,000 is chump change for Google and Oracle. Oracle is not suing Google over $30,000.
These files are emphatically not unit tests. There are no tests in there. Unit tests in Java use Junit and generally test something.
Here would be a sample
import junit.framework.*;
public class TestCourse extends TestCase {
private Course c;
public TestCourse(String name) {
super(name);
}
protected void setUp() {
c = new Course();
c.setName("St. Andrews");
int[] par = {4,4,4,4,5,4,4,3,4,4,3,4,4,5,4,4,4,4};
c.setPar(par);
}
public void testSomething() {
assertEquals(0, c.parUpToHole(0));
assertEquals(8, c.parUpToHole(2));
assertEquals(72, c.parUpToHole(18));
}
Whatever part of the tree this stuff appeared in it did nothing like that. Use Junit. Subclass TestCase. Any expert developer could probably see that there was no test here. Also - how can a unit test in a totally different project test the class it is testing, unless that class were the same and had the same functionality and paramamters, results and outputs?
So something is copied, not that this was a unit test anyway.
The placing of this code in the unit test part of the tree, is itself suspect.
Pasting an Apache license on GPL'd code falls spectacularly into the "not legal" category.
Is it just me, or do other people also think that FOSS would be better off if this guy just left us alone?
That's kind of how source repositories work when you delete things.
That depends entirely on how the repository is structured. I'm assuming though that 2.2 and 2.3 are separate trees/branches/repositories/whatever, in which case it's perfectly possible to delete the files from the current revision on those branches too. Given that the legal status of these files is in question, it would be wisest to completely remove the files - even if that means having to remove access to previous revisions of the source tree.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Of course we can troll mod him out of existence. He's the original troll.
He doesn't get any special brownie points.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Nono. Please don't. I don't think I can cope with any more of your 'creative' view of the IT world :(
I really don't understand this bias against Oracle.
Do you know how I can tell you never had to deal with them or their products?
If there is one company that I wouldn't mind getting hit by a medium sized comet, it's Oracle. Words can't begin to describe how piss poor their products are. Look at the RDBMS funny and it throws an "ORA-600" while mangling your data beyond hope of repair. The data warehouse tools are, for lack of a better word, ludicrously bad. Unusably bad.
The lack of quality is only surpassed by the sheer arrogance of the people that work for the company. It doesn't matter if you have to deal with their sales people, their support desk or the so-called professionals that charge top dollar prices while delivering sub standard performance. All are pricks.
Man, don't get me started on Oracle, the horror I've been through...
What you said was:
Android contains, under the Apache license, code that is essentially just decompiled code of Oracle/Sun software that was never licensed to Apache.
Now, with some creative interpretation, you can likely indeed weasel out of it and say that this doesn't really mean that files were shipped to end users as part of Android. But it certainly wasn't the impression from your original post, and nowhere did you highlight that very important detail. What more, you contrasted your newly discovered files with PolicyNodeImpl.java, from which the "decompiled unlicensed copy" story started - and why it wasn't big deal back in the day was that it didn't ship on devices.
A lot of readers interpreted your words in the same way as TFA, which leaves one to wonder if that was an honest mistake (but then why not just admit that and correct the story?), an attempt to sound more sensationalist than it really is by omitting details that make it mundane, or deliberate FUD. I was one of those readers, and I now have to apologize to fellow Slashdot readers for spreading this misinformation. Are you going to apologize for starting it?
I believe people who try to just misuse mod points against me are real trolls and Slashdot should make sure that such people don't get mod points again too soon.
The burden of proof goes the other way. Oracle would need to prove that this distribution did cause damage. It is not Google's (or anyone else's) job to prove lack of damages. They could maybe get server logs to determine # of downloads, but that's only useful for statutory damages.
The files discovered in the Android code repository are unequivocally Oracle's IP, with an inappropriately modified license. This means, that for these at least, Google is almost certainly liable for infringement. However, since none of those files ever went into an Android handset, their presence, in a legal sense, is most likely completely irrelevant with regards to Oracle's main aim, which is to extract court-mandated royalties from Google and/or handset manufacturers for each Android device they produce. It would be like the RIAA trying to collect royalties on music that I wrote and produced on my own, because they found pirated music on one of my computers.
Does that sound about right, or am I way off-base here?
Doesn't sound like "distributing," more like "making available." The files were in the tree for a while, have since been removed, and were apparently never shipped on a handset. None of the files were significant, or added any value, to Android. It was pretty clearly unintentional (likewise with changing the license, likely happened during an automated process). Even if Google were to get hit with a Jammie Thomas scale judgement, a few million $ is mice nuts to them.
Oh, and if unintentionally replacing the GPL license with Apache were to cause them to loose access to these files, it simply doesn't matter. They weren't part of Android to begin with.
Oracle, these aren't the droids you're looking for.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
I very much want to see Larry take his Java patents to court and get smacked down on abundant prior art.
I hope you meant Larry Ellison and not Larry Page.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Knock me over with a feather.
But I've already based an entire wikipedia article on that info!
#DeleteChrome
Okay, maybe not creative. We'll go with "incorrect" then.
Yes, it is. The correct name is AOSP, or more correctly, the AOSP repository. You could get away with 'Android repository' but that would be confusing. Android is a term given to a set of derived operating systems. It is neither open source nor a codebase (most Android distributions are closed source).
I'd be surprised if these files were individually registered with the US Copyright Office, but I could be wrong. If they were registered as a group, distributing a portion of the files for testing purposes likely doesn't even qualify as copyright infringement.
Statutory damages can also go as high as $150,000 per infringement under the right circumstances, but the number of infringements don't matter. Only the number works infringed.
I'm not really sure what Oracle is going for here, are they really that hard up for cash that they'll spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to squeeze Google for $150k?
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
It's also wrong, as stated above, that Google "deleted" those files. They are still in the Froyo (Android 2.2) and Gingerbread (2.3) trees. At least they were when I last checked, which was yesterday. They are just not in the tree for future versions.
Wow Florian, that's a creative interpretation of "not deleted". I presume that you mean, a user can still check out an older repository version and that version would contain the files in question. Let me make an equally creative counter-proposition. If the files were deleted from the tip of the repository but not from the history, that simply provides a historical record of exactly what was deleted. You can't make the information vanish from the past you know, unless you are also proposing some kind of time travel. You can only make information vanish from the present, that is, tip of tree.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
even if that means having to remove access to previous revisions of the source tree.
That's not really an option, given the fact that most Android devices still use pre-2.3 versions of the OS.
I think the wisest option is exactly what they are doing: leave the old stuff alone, remove them from the new stuff, and wait for the injunction that may or may not ever come. Here's a hint - since the source is so "out there" already, it will probably never come.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
You can be sure the damage award would not be zero even if nobody ever used it.
For an inadvertent inclusion of an incorrect license on GPLed code? I can't be sure of what you suggest at all, in fact the opposite seems considerably more likely. Looks to me like you're pretty far out on a limb on this, I would suggest backing slowly away.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Pasting an Apache license on GPL'd code falls spectacularly into the "not legal" category.
Spectacularly? You must lead a pretty dull life :-)
In my opinion, it falls more in the "should be pointed out and corrected" category. Much like a typo in a textbook.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Courts will also have determined harm before deciding on any awards. Putting files that did nothing but test certain parts and didn't affect functionality and putting out files that infringed on whole functionality will most likely have differing amounts attached.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
My blog never made a specific claim about Android devices containing certain code.
That's not what your blog post reads like. If they're not part of the codebase used on an Android device, you should have explicitly stated so,
Being in the repository is being part of the codebase.
seeing as quite obviously "The Android versions of those files" by default suggests that those files are a part of the Android OS.
The repository is the OS. It's just not the binary that the end-user receives. It is the OS the developer receives when they modify Android, or develop apps for it, or downloads it for whatever reason they choose to. That's how Open Source works.
It's also wrong, as stated above, that Google "deleted" those files. They are still in the Froyo (Android 2.2) and Gingerbread (2.3) trees. At least they were when I last checked, which was yesterday. They are just not in the tree for future versions.
That's kind of how source repositories work when you delete things.
Which is another way of saying, he's absolutely correct. The files are still there and still violating copyright. I'm not sure exactly how that's supposed to be a rebuttal.
You CAN'T simply "troll" mod him out of existence.
Of course they can. "-1 Troll" means, "what you're saying contradicts what I wish were true" here on Slashdot.
This is why I decided not to be a lawyer. You made up some bullshit blog post that definately gave people the impression that Android was using stolen code. You know.. in the phone...
Then when someone calls you on your bullshit you use a bunch of legalese to try to weasel your way out of any responsibility for what you said.
"I never said it was on a phone"
Well you never said it wasn't and your blog post gave the impression that it was.
This type of shit may fly on Engadget, but slashdot users aren't retarded. Not all of us anyway.. Every time I think I want to post a comment on Engadget I read the incredibly stupid stuff that has already been posted and I just give up.
Let me see if I got this straight.
People who may or may not genuinely believe that you are trolling are themselves trolls, because you, the suspected troll, say they are?
You have singlehandedly muddied up an already confusing case. We don't need some sensationalist like you cashing in.
Shut up!
Wait, you post an article that's completely full of shit (because you're a Microsoft shill), and people who mod you down are the real trolls? You need your head checked, dude.
Happy to clarify. I was talking about misuse of mod points. The purpose of mod points is to rate posts by their content (as opposed to holding an overall popularity vote on the author). Rating a reasonable contribution to a discussion as a "troll" post constitutes misuse because it means an unjustified rating, with the effect that readers are less likely to get access to useful information. It's anti-social behavior because it adversely affects the quality of the information people are likely to see here.
From any angle Android's Java reliance seams like a bad move.
.NET.
Any sensible move would have had them developing to a more open platform like
I'm a big tall mofo.
Florid Muttonead.
Flatulent Moron
Foolishly Mistaken
F****** M******
The Mouth that Roared
Anus Horribulus
That's you - and lots more. The stench of the flow of pointless logorrhea from you precedes you. First rule - when you're in it up to your neck, stop digging. Nobody with any technical knowledge believes anything you say, because we've seen you intentionally lie too many times. If you're going to troll, it would help to get a clue first.
This is probably the final ignomy - even the stupidest trolls wouldn't want to be associated with you after this boner.
Flagrant Muttonhead was just trolling, like he's been doing for years. This is someone whose anti-open-source agenda is coming apart, and he's getting desperate to try to re-establish any credibility.
Sadly, everyone who viewed the links to the android source tree which showed the files as listed in the tree (see links from post by original author above) then they have distributed the code.
The reality of it is, it doesn't matter where they distributed it or how, doesn't have to be on a phone, it can simply be sending it to someone via email. Its still distribution once it leaves the organization (like when I clicked the link above).
Silly as it sounds, legally valid it is.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
This is off topic, but I have to ask: Your username, is it Wheel of Time related?
Anyone got a light for my sig?
Please name one Android device that ships with this code.
I'm looking for clarity regarding the impact of any possible infringement. Willful infringement of code central to Android devices could stop shipments. Incidental infringement of peripheral code is another matter. It should be resolved, of course, but would have little impact on the market.
Do Android devices contain infringing code? Do they contain infringing code that could be easily replaced? Or do they contain infringing code that is central to their operation?
"Clearly, Android is a derivative work -- so much so that Google's engineers stole Oracle test code to ensure that it operated substantially identically the Oracle code it was derived from..." (hypothetical). Lawyers can do scary things in court when they have evidence of your hands in the cookie jar.
I believe those would be git repositories. Since the ID of every commit is based on the entire history of every file, directory, and commit before it, it would be almost impossible to rewrite the history. Sure, Google could do it, but (a) every commit would get a different ID, breaking the ability for everyone to update their repositories trivially, and (b) every individual's copy of the original repository will contain the entire history and every version of every file. There is no practical way to remove those files permanently, and anytime someone pushes their modified version to their server or to github or wherever, they'll come back again.
I agree with your point about distribution. However, that misses my point regarding the practical effects.
If test code was infringed, then Google would be required to stop distributing it, and pay Oracle for any damage done. Which might not be much; even if it is, Google can afford to pay.
If infringing code was shipped in phones, then the sale of those phones can be blocked. If the phones don't contain infringing code, then they can ship. That's the critical issue for Oracle, Google, phone manufacturers, and buyers of phones.
I very much want to see Larry take his Java patents to court and get smacked down on abundant prior art.
I hope you meant Larry Ellison and not Larry Page.
Falcon
Good point, in future I should specify "Larry Troll" to avoid confusion with "Larry Geek".
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
True, but when you point that out it kinda ruins the FUD factor :/
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I'd say that checking deleted files out from a previous revision is rather akin to snooping for garbage in deleted areas of a disk
I'll do a couple of follow-up posts on my blog these days to respond to some of the misconceptions and misinformation out there.
My blog never made a specific claim about Android devices containing certain code.
Please don't, you've trolled your blog more than enough already. You can try and Houdini your way out of your bull crap with "I never actually said that" like comments but it clearly read that way to just about any who read it.
It's not a "creative interpretation" to refer to android.git.kernel.org as Android. I will clarify this, with some additional information that may surprise some, on my blog soon.
Hurray! More views for your blog, you pretty much got what you wish for at Christmas.
Most GPL violations are solved with a quick appology and direct remediation of the violation. Typically the violation is the failure to disclose source and such disclosure then happens. Damaged or headers are not uncommon, and in case of individual stupidity (not every guy checking stuff into version control is a jet-fuel genius) or honest mistake (not every guy checking stuff into version control is fully versed in copyright law), then reasonable people just go "eh, dude, that needs to be fixed" and then someone else replies "ok, cool, I'll fix that".
So the change of license was wrong, and needs to be fixed. Neither license is particularly incompatible with the other. Reasonable people, finding an issue _this_ minor are expected to act reasonably.
Of course Orace is involved so that's expecting rather a lot.
For the most part, if the actual complaint was this mis-licensing, between typical and reasonable GPL entities, then there would have been a check-in with the corrected headers.
So no matter what the other facts may be, the damage threshold is nascent to non-existent, and the "reasonable behavior" test has not been met by Oracle.
This whole thing is Oracle FUD to damage Android for no apparent reason than the fact that Oracle doest that kind of thing.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
If anybody at Google created a script specifically designed to remove the original header and replace it with a different header, then that is evidence of INTENT to violate the law.
Replacing the header from an original work is a violation of copyright law even if the code was BSD.
Your fast on your way to certified internet "kook" status. Your not a lawyer and your certainly not a free software advocate. Your a slimy internet marketing prostitute.
As some have noted, having the files in the source they distributed is a possible copyright violation, even if the files aren't actually put on Android devices. And as others have noted, the liability would just fall on Google, not on the vendors of Android devices, and the damages would likely be small, so these copyright claims won't be a noticeable money maker for Oracle even if true.
I believe that Oracle doesn't really care much about the alleged copyright violations. They are just in there as a trial tactic. What Oracle is banking on are the patents. Throwing in the copyright claims does two things that are good for Oracle and bad for Google.
First, there is much that is subjective when it comes to patent infringement. Both sides will present as part of their cases an argument for what damages should be. Oracle will have an expert showing how Google should have to pay an astronomical amount. Google will have an expert arguing that if Google is found to have infringed, the damages should be very small. Determining which damage number to believe is rather subjective (and the jury will be able to go for something in between, too).
The jury will take into account, at least subconsciously, what they think of Google and Oracle. They can't avoid doing this--they are human beings, and that's how humans work. If Oracle can show that Google violated copyrights and patents, that will tend to make the jury see Google in a more negative light than if they just violated patents. Google will want to be seen, if found to infringe the patents, as a company that takes IP seriously and tried hard to not step on Oracle's rights, and the patent infringement was accidental. Oracle wants Google to be seen as a company with wanton disregard for other's IP.
Second, each side has limited time for its case. Some courts even go so far as to use chess clocks to track each side. Oracle can present a prima facie case for copyright infringement pretty quickly. Name some files. Show that they are the copyright owners. Show that they have registered the copyrights. Put up on the projector some diffs showing their files and Google's alleged copies. Point out the massive similarities. Sit down. Now Google gets to stand up, explain the concept of Java boilerplate code to the jury. Take them through the files showing that the commonalities are in boilerplate. For those things not in boilerplate, explain what they are doing and how there are just a few well-known good ways to do them and so it is quite likely different programmers would come up with the same structure. Explain naming conventions and show that they might reasonably even pick the same names.
Note that Google's defense of the copyright issues is likely to take longer to present than Oracle's accusation. If Oracle can spend 10 minutes on it, and Google needs 90 to respond, that's a damn good investment by Oracle. It's 90 minutes less time for Google to spend attacking the validity of Oracle's patents, or trying to show Google doesn't infringe, or to spend on a good closing argument to cement their case.
The problem with this argument is that if the code was GPLed the source has to be freely available. In which case Google is not in violation of distributing the source code.
It was wrong the license was changed but the code being distributed was not wrong. One of the complaints against Google illegally distributing the source code.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Except that Google *DID* distribute the copyrighted code in question,
But the GPL requires source code to be distributed if the software is distributed.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
They will fight a little publicly to get attention. Then the lawyers of google, oracle, and the handset vendors using android will meet in a pleasant atmosphere, then they will compare the size of the patent stacks and compare the money everybody earns by handling it right, and then google and the other handset manufacturers will pay some amount of money to license java in the future (and probably will not make statements about the past aside from a declaration that nobody owes anybody else anything for the past). Google will have a problem less, the manufactures can continue to sell and oracle gets the badge of "biggest java provider for mobile solutions in the world" which they can use to advertise.
A sensible move would've been to trash the whole VM concept in favor of a language that can be directly compiled to binary. Preferably one that's easily mapped to an universal construct all programmers should be familiar with, such as a Turing Machine, that produces fast and efficient programs, and one whose syntax could be easily matched to the limited input methods available on most cellphones.
Clearly, the most sensible option would've been to write Android in Brainfuck.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Wouldn't it be simple enough to open comments on your blog? Oh you could never do that now.... could you?
Look... Florian Mueller suffers from NPD, he is unable to work with others and believes he is supernaturally gifted. His basically zero-level self-esteem makes him an eager whore to whomever can pay his outrageous fees, and he uses his remarkable intelligence to do circus tricks with complex material that most people can't follow. For the last year or so he's been a Microsoft whore, starting with promoting RAND in open standards (the "realistic acceptance of patents as a fact of life"), then attacking IBM, and now attacking Android with this rather fantastic and contrived scenario. Some team uploads some incidental files to the Android repository and this becomes a major incident? In the mind of a sick man, perhaps. In real life, it's a take down request and a speedy deletion.
He's not after advertising hits, he's after attention and a good fight, and he can weasel his way around even the smartest people. Don't imagine you're so smart here. There is only one solution to dealing with someone with this mental disorder: total, utter silence. Ignore him, no matter how provocative and trollish he is. Without the attention he craves, he will eventually go somewhere else.
You cannot convince him of anything because he believes nothing. You cannot prove him wrong because he has no position. You cannot win a fight with him because he is more slippery than a rotten herring. You cannot dent his way of thinking because it's a mental illness. And you cannot hurt him because he is paid, extraordinarily well, to do this.
I'm posting anonymously because even the slightest risk that this sick and toxic person will focus on me and my projects is unacceptable.
You mean handled like screaming bloody murderer to the whole world before contacting the developer in question, right?
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.wireless.general/1558
Maybe i'm wrong here, but, the infringement is on Android OS not an Android device. So if no device ever shipped with it it doesn't matter. When you put software online, it's considered distribution. The point is, google put versions of android online which had these files. That no device ever shipped with them is moot. It just means the device makers aren't liable. but google still is.
I'll tell you what they're going for -- they want to create a cloud of legal uncertainty so that Android handset manufacturers will strike a deal with them now rather than risking a future lawsuit after/if Google loses.
Also. they probably want to call us "teasmoking cockbaggers", or something like that, and bizarrely motivated legal action is evidently a prerequisite for that.
How the hell are you going to know what the devices are shipping, if the manufacturers who use Android only publish GPL code because they are forced to? The mentioned code is using the Apache license, so HTC, Motorola, etc., are not going to bother about releasing the especific code they are using in their devices. The truth is that the Android Open Source Project publishes code, and that code infringes copyright, but actual Android devices come with very few source code released (kernel and bluez at most).
Android is a term given to a set of derived operating systems. It is neither open source nor a codebase (most Android distributions are closed source).
So, Florian says that there is a problem in the Android source code found in the repository, and you claim that there is only one repository opened to the public and with open source code. Where is he doing "creative interpretation"? There is only one open repo and one open codebase, so it's obvious which is. He maybe got wrong the name, but stating that he was "creative" is trying to make it look like he made up the infringement, which is not the case.
Accidentally, a friend of mine checked in an mp3 file in a repository that we don't have the rights to redistribute. I promise you that if you fear a copyright infringement case, you end up not only deleting the files from the tip of the branch or the trunk. You actually make manual amendments in the history of the repository, even if that's impossible with regular commands, and you have to dig in the internal structure, and from now then everyone has to redo their checkouts/clones (or dump the whole history and start fresh). Go to a limit case. What if somebody committed by accident a picture of the CEO when he was drunk? Or pornography? Would the AOSP still distribute the file in the past branches? I doubt so.
Oh piss off.
Can we put things in perspective ?
Yes Google did a mistake (whether it was intended, it may be hard to prove). But were talking about 7 files that are not even part of the runtime OS. Were talking about no patented functionality, no functionality at all in fact (no runtime code), no linking of these files with Androids other files. Hei Google even removed the files from the (future) trees as soon as it became aware of it.
Does this warrant a multi million lawsuit ? Really ? (I know there are other arguments, but this one seems a bit light to me, at least on its own)
Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
You think he's intelligent? Have you actually read any of his garbage(please don't bother, that was a rhetorical question)? Being capable of spewing word salad to try and twist real world logic is not an indication of actual intelligence.
I dunno why this got modded -1. It should be modded informative, as it's clearly an excellent example of this 'trolling' behaviour people are talking about.
Oh so google is in the clear?
Without knowing the details I doubt it
01.22.11
It’s SCO Tactics All Over Again: Microsoft Florian Caught Lying
ANOTHER week, another attack on GNU/Linux, courtesy of course of Microsoft Florian, who is trying to be another Enderle/O’Gara (attacking Android like these people attack Linux). Those big lies and unbacked allegations carry on flying, such as the claims he made for TurboHercules (that’s how he started the anti-Linux lobbying a year ago) before it turned out that TurboHercules is partly owned by Microsoft. For the uninitiated, Microsoft Florian’s strategy involves flooding forums with repeated messages (he denied comments in his blog after people had exposed him right there in his own platform) and he is mass-mailing journalists with bits he wants inserted into articles, attributed to him of course. Journalists will need learn to ignore mobbyists (Florian personalises his messages slightly, so they can’t see it’s mass-mailed), especially ones who do not deny a connection to Microsoft and have a proven history of being paid to lobby. Microsoft Florian himself would not deny this. He is an experienced lobbyist and his shameless tactics (like abusing mail and schmoozing journalists) are well documented in Techright.
http://techrights.org/2011/01/22/boosting-vista-phony-7-with-lies/
As I said, my proposition is creative, as was Hr. Mueller's asserting that Google has not "deleted" the files in question. Some repository structures do not permit history modification. Perhaps they should, regardless of technical difficulty. But the question of whether an isolated file in the downloadable history of an open source repository infringes anything at all is far from clear. Consider the principle of fair use where "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes" helps determine whether a given expression infringes or not. The questions are far from black and white as the trolls would like to pretend. As a non-lawyer may I be so bold as to suggest that non-profit and/or educational nature of an open source repository would weigh heavily against a determination of infringement. Another factor I would expect to weigh heavily is whether the copyright holder has communicated its belief that a given use is infringing in such a way that inadvertent infringement can be corrected. In contrast, a "surprise attack" based on accidental infringement might well run afoul of antitrust laws, and at least, might well earn the ire of the court. All interesting questions, stuff to make lawyers rich. As an open source author I will not lose sleep over whether a few lines in my repository carry the wrong attribution or incorrect license notice, but I would never dream of refusing a reasonable request to make the appropriate correction. I would also consider it advisable for Mercurial and Git developers to take steps to ensure that removal of text content from historical records is fast and easy, just as insurance.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
... and you'd be wrong. Would you say that looking in a history book for information was like "snooping for garbage?" I wouldn't either. Neither would a court.
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
Should he apolgize because you were stupid? How the hell was this moderated insightful ?
Good point. And perhaps now *you* will realize that you can't dismiss someone else's valid arguments and exhaust them into silence just because you don't agree with them.
Yes, they are liable, but liable for what? What damages case can you make for files that aren't actually used?
Maybe they can be sued for "making available" regardless of damages, like has happened in some other cases?
Unlike with repositories, pages in a history book can be torn out or erased without corrupting the book as a whole.
To relate the analogy to revision control that by its nature is amendment resistant, erasing repository data would be like ripping the binding out of a book and makign the pages fall loose leafed.
Comparing repositories to history books is defective.
My blog never made a specific claim about Android devices containing certain code.
And that's the point! The whole reason why this saga doesn't matter.
The GPL violation has been brought to their attention and they have rectified it by removing it from the repo - by the nature of a repository the files will remain in the archive (perhaps they will need to actually do a full delete) - so the question is why are you making so much of a fuss over what is a very minor GPL violation? Very minor in the sense that shipping versions of Android do not contain the code.
You can be sure the damage award would not be zero even if nobody ever used it. Just the act of publishing it creates damage.
GPL violations almost never result in anything beyond fixing the violation and covering the costs incurred in pursuing it - which of course are basically nothing in this case.
And can you or anyone else prove that no one ever downloaded the file, relied on an Apache license header and consequently built it into something (Android or not)?
You've got it backwards dumbass.
It's funny because it's actually true. Not that slashdot will believe it for another decade or so (not that I blame them with the kind of crap MS has pulled in the past).
I am trolling
You can't make the information vanish from the past you know, unless you are also proposing some kind of time travel. You can only make information vanish from the present, that is, tip of tree.
A SCM tree isn't reality, bound by Time's Arrow. It's a computer system with data that can be manipulated in the present.
You would need to violate the historical integrity of the tree to delete the 'offending' data, but you don't actually need a time machine to do so.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
That's part of the point. If you can access the old, wrongly-distributed code it is still being made available to be copied. And that's a violation of the original copyright owner's rights.
Are you blind or dumb, those are unit test cases file. I dont think they ever get shipped.
If Google distributed the source at any point, it's a copyright violation, whether or not it shipped in a handset.
If it didn't ship in a handset, then while Google may have at some point committed a copyright violation, it doesn't show that the Android OS delivered in handsets is a product containing code under Oracle copyrights distributed improperly, and so while it might be a valid basis for a claim against Google of some kind, it isn't particularly relevant to the Android-related claims in the Oracle-Google lawsuit.
I'd be surprised if these files were individually registered with the US Copyright Office, but I could be wrong.
It doesn't really matter if they are now or were at the time they were copied; the registration requirement applies at the time the suit is filed, not at the time of the alleged infringement. Its fairly common for registration to occur immediately prior to filing suit.
I'm not really sure what Oracle is going for here, are they really that hard up for cash that they'll spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to squeeze Google for $150k?
Oracle is suing over Android. Some third-party blogger claimed to have discovered Oracle-owned code in the Android distribution with GPL licenses filed off and replaced with Apache licenses. As it turns out, the files do exist, but weren't in the code base for the Android distribution, they were in unit tests that were separate from the distribution.
Oracle, AFAICT, isn't going for anything (yet) with regard to these files.
Wow Florian, that's a creative interpretation of "not deleted". I presume that you mean, a user can still check out an older repository version and that version would contain the files in question. Let me make an equally creative counter-proposition. If the files were deleted from the tip of the repository but not from the history, that simply provides a historical record of exactly what was deleted. You can't make the information vanish from the past you know, unless you are also proposing some kind of time travel. You can only make information vanish from the present, that is, tip of tree.
I think his point was that the files were still being distributed. Meaning Google would still be committing copyright infringement. Until the files can no longer be accessed from any method from Google, then Google will still be infringing the copyright and will there for be legally liable for the offense.