Google Didn't Ship Relicensed Java Code After All 223
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."
Ex-Sun honcho recent resignation (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Go Google go (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:wait a second.. (Score:4, Interesting)
On the other hand, Google is only liable for infringement ONCE. The number of times you infringe doesn't matter, it's a per-work thing, not a per-infringement thing. Also, was each file individually registered with the Copyright Office? Copyright is automatic, and you can license without registering, but you cannot collect statutory damages without registering. In fact, registering the works doesn't even make continued infringement after registration liable to statutory damages.
In other words, about $30k per file is what Oracle can expect out of Google. If Oracle manages to get the handset manufacturers in on it (I can't see how they could, but lawyers are pretty creative) all it means is Google gets to split the cost of that $30k with the handset manufacturers - Oracle won't see an extra dime.
This is really pretty pathetic, and typical of Oracle. Instead of calling up Google and saying "WTF bro? You re-licensed my code without my permission! That's not cool!" and allowing Google to say "Oh snap! My bad! I'll fix it!", they decided to try to sucker-punch Google after walking out of a club late Saturday night.
Childish is what it is.
Re:I was *not* plain wrong -- unlike some 'rebutta (Score:4, Interesting)
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.