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."
If Google distributed the source at any point, it's a copyright violation, whether or not it shipped in a handset.
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.
Yes, they are liable, but liable for what? What damages case can you make for files that aren't actually used?
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
Usually the infringed party contacts the infringing party and allows them to correct the error, since mistakes happen. It's the polite, non-douchebag way to behave, particularly since the goal of the GPL is spreading code. In legal terms, it's called "good-faith".
Oracle, of course, is a douchebag, and as such does things the douchebag way.
Thus, Oracle gets slammed for being a douchebag.
It's like seeing a guy hit on your girlfriend, and instead of telling the guy she's spoken for, you sucker-punch him. You're a douchebag if you behave that way, plain and simple. That's how Oracle operates.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller