A well-known open source advocate has accused Google of copying at least seven and up to as many as 43 Android files directly from Oracle's Java source code. It's unclear whether the files were actually included with the shipping version of Android, but they were open-sourced by Google under an Apache license, and that alone …
So who is the "well-known open source advocate" referred to in the first paragraph?
Whilst Florian Mueller is quoted later in the article, "well-known" or even "notorious" he may be, but surely no-one would consider him an advocate of open-source. The question is just what is he an advocate for?
Anonymous Coward hasn't heard of Florian Mueller.
Those of us who are active open source developers have. He's a very big name. And in contrast to Anonymous Coward, he understands the importance to open source of honesty and respect for each other's work, whether that work is open source or not.
2.2 Froyo - Yes
3.3 Gingerbread - No
2.3 Gingerbread - Yes!
How's that for a first post?
So if these files were open sourced then Google can use them and the only thing they have done wrong is re-licence them under apache?
Maybe I'm reading the article wrong but this doesn't seem to have any major implications for android.
Google have a free pass ...
... to copy and exploit whatever IP they happen to spider.
Code from Apache
All Apache code is open. Therefore you (or anyone) can check for yourself whether any particular file comes from Apache.
If, as happened before, journalists print a lot of misleading nonsense, then Apache might feel compelled to correct it.
I hope Google were a bit more rigorous in the open sourcing of VP8 as WebM. Maybe Google are a little nervous, and that's why they won't indemnify users of WebM against patent infringement.
death to all titles
More at groklaw http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110122054409107 - this guy reckons it's SCO mark II
Virtual Pharming and Novel Pharmaceuticals in and for AI Growth Industries
So, finally it is realised that the Google search engine algorithms are nothing more worthy than a phorm of phish in earlier code for a Dodgy Cloning of Intellectual Property Operation, which all sounds very Social Network/Zuckerberg Facebook like?
Is that typical atypical Uncle Sam and Wall Street Modus Operandi and Vivendi ..... to live and thrive and drive off the strive of A.N.Others? ......... which is a parasitic and quite catastrophic phorm of IQ?
some interesting possible explanation
happens all the time
It's kinda funny to see something like this get blown up as a huge deal in the press. Really, people stick the wrong headers on unimportant source files all the time. Just this morning I found a couple in a project maintained by a relatively big name which have GPL headers where they're clearly intended to have LGPL headers. End of the world? No. It's just a run-of-the-mill smeg-up. Given the circumstances this will likely wind up as a claim in the court case, but it's really not a big deal. People make bigger screw-ups with licensing all the time. Developers aren't lawyers, and they often get it wrong.
Which android are you running?
Thought gingerbread was 2.3? Does 3.3 include time travel as standard?
There was I thinking Google must have some shit-hot developers to be able to push out so many services and applications so quickly. How naive.
You get whatever Xmas you deserve
For F*** sake, in a world where Apple succeeded in making developers write in objective C anything and everything is possible.
Google should have taken the easy route out and just used Python or something totally new altogether. Anything but the legal minefiled that it is "Java which is not Java". We have already seen that movie with Microsoft. Write once, run nowhere is not a game which anyone but the language "owner" can win.
Open sources is to confusing no wonder 90% of the software is shady.
I have to ask....
I'm not involved with developing at any level so answer me this....
If say, 5 lines of code written in a langauge define a task or function and is written in such a way that conforms to some standard, isnt it quite likely that code would appear in software that looks the same as that written by another company?
Dont flame me to hard, its just an honest question.
- Review Is it an iPad? Is it a MacBook Air? No, it's a Surface Pro 3
- Microsoft refuses to nip 'Windows 9' unzip lip slip
- Tesla: YES – We'll build a network of free Superchargers in Oz
- US Copyright Office rules that monkeys CAN'T claim copyright over their selfies
- True fact: 1 in 4 Brits are now TERRORISTS