Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 14th Nov 2010 22:41 UTC
Legal About time! Google has responded to Oracle's amended complaint in the big Oracle v Google patent and copyright hoedown, and it's a contradictory grab bag of various defences, basically throwing everything and seeing what sticks - a normal and common course of events in cases like this. There are some juicy claims in there.
Order by: Score:
PolicyNodeImpl
by Timmmm on Sun 14th Nov 2010 23:52 UTC
Timmmm
Member since:
2006-07-25

It's been fairly conclusively shown that Google's PoligcyNodeImpl is a result of decompilation of Sun's code [1] which is definitely illegal.

However, that is only one file and I can't see why they couldn't just say "Oh yeah we screwed up with that file, we'll reimplement it legally.". The damages surely couldn't be too great...

[1] http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/dxmvr/oracle_google_di...

Reply Score: 1

RE: PolicyNodeImpl
by Soulbender on Mon 15th Nov 2010 00:38 UTC in reply to "PolicyNodeImpl"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

decompilation of Sun's code [1] which is definitely illegal.


That's not what the link says.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: PolicyNodeImpl
by Timmmm on Mon 15th Nov 2010 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE: PolicyNodeImpl"
Timmmm Member since:
2006-07-25

"decompilation of Sun's code [1] which is definitely illegal.


That's not what the link says.
"

The link says it was decompilation of Sun's code. You understand how references work right? The little number comes *after* the thing you are talking about.

And when I said it is illegal, perhaps that was badly worded. I didn't mean decompilation *itself* was illegal, but decompilation and then redistribution under a different licence is clearly illegal.

That is, unless the original licence says you can do that. Let's see. It's GPL plus classpath. Some quotes:

What does the exception allow me to do?

If you combine GNU Classpath with independent modules to produce an executable you can copy and distribute the resulting executable under terms of your choice.


From the GPL:

You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.
b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to “keep intact all notices”.
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy.


You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License.


It doesn't explicitly mention decompilation, but I think it is pretty clear.

Besides that would be a really stupid loophole. You could just compile any GPL program with full debug information and decompile it to get an equivalent non-GPL program. Obviously you're not allowed to do that.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: PolicyNodeImpl
by jgagnon on Mon 15th Nov 2010 18:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PolicyNodeImpl"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

Besides that would be a really stupid loophole. You could just compile any GPL program with full debug information and decompile it to get an equivalent non-GPL program. Obviously you're not allowed to do that.


In all seriousness, how is that any different than any other form of reverse engineering, considering you can have access to the machine code of any running/compiled program?

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: PolicyNodeImpl
by Timmmm on Mon 15th Nov 2010 18:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: PolicyNodeImpl"
Timmmm Member since:
2006-07-25

In all seriousness, how is that any different than any other form of reverse engineering, considering you can have access to the machine code of any running/compiled program?


It's not. You can't just decompile MS Office, for example, and then put the decompiled source on your website for free.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: PolicyNodeImpl
by lemur2 on Mon 15th Nov 2010 22:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: PolicyNodeImpl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"In all seriousness, how is that any different than any other form of reverse engineering, considering you can have access to the machine code of any running/compiled program?
It's not. You can't just decompile MS Office, for example, and then put the decompiled source on your website for free. "

That is true, but that is because the license for MS Office says that you cannot do that.

In this particular case, however, the license of the code in question requires you to do the equivalent of putting the "source on your website for free".

For some inexplicable reason, people seem to be having a real hard time understanding this point.

Edited 2010-11-15 22:18 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: PolicyNodeImpl
by Timmmm on Tue 16th Nov 2010 12:17 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: PolicyNodeImpl"
Timmmm Member since:
2006-07-25

In this particular case, however, the license of the code in question requires you to do the equivalent of putting the "source on your website for free".


Yes, UNDER THE GPL! How is this so hard to understand?!

For some inexplicable reason, people seem to be having a real hard time understanding this point.


Ironic.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: PolicyNodeImpl
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Nov 2010 12:53 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: PolicyNodeImpl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"In this particular case, however, the license of the code in question requires you to do the equivalent of putting the "source on your website for free".


Yes, UNDER THE GPL! How is this so hard to understand?!

For some inexplicable reason, people seem to be having a real hard time understanding this point.


Ironic.
"

Whoosh!

I think you have utterly missed the point. Google made the code in question available via a git repository. Therefore, they made the source code available to the public.

Now, if Oracle undertake a long battle, and somehow convince the court against the evidence and the odds that Google have actually violated Oracle's copyright, then Oracle may win the case and get the court to force Goggle to obey the terms of the license for that code in question.

The code in question is licensed under the GPL.

Goggle might be forced to ... make the source code available. Perhpas they might have to put it in a git repository or something ...

Oh wait.

Now do you see the irony?

If you do not, then my original comment stands utterly vindicated ... people seem to be having a real hard time understanding this point. You amongst them.

Edited 2010-11-16 12:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: PolicyNodeImpl
by lemur2 on Mon 15th Nov 2010 02:42 UTC in reply to "PolicyNodeImpl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

It's been fairly conclusively shown that Google's PoligcyNodeImpl is a result of decompilation of Sun's code which is definitely illegal. However, that is only one file and I can't see why they couldn't just say "Oh yeah we screwed up with that file, we'll reimplement it legally.". The damages surely couldn't be too great... [1] http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/dxmvr/oracle_google_di...


From the comments against your link:
Wow, you mean a case of copyright infringement where the original source code was licensed under GPL with the Classpath Exception? (meaning that the binary produced from that file can be used and distributed as the end user sees fit, e.g. decompiling is fair game. Even if Google are 'bang to rights' here, a single class of with obvious behaviour? one that is not even distributed with the phone? Come on Oracle is this all you've got?

Oracle have a case here, a case of 'mountains out of a molehill'. It's pretty obvious that Oracle are trying to use this to somehow strengthen their patent claims. I think that may just backfire, this is starting to look similar to SCO vs Novell/IBM.


De-compiling GPL code is most decidedly not illegal.

From the authors of the GPL:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.


The first freedom allows you to run the code for the purpose of studying it and finding out how it works. The second freedom, "freedom to study how the program works" covers de-compilation. The last freedom covers re-distribution of modified versions.

I think you must have got confused between GPL code, and restrictions which are included in EULAs for proprietary code.

De-compilation of code is not even "illegal" under copyright law itself. Only distribution of illegal copies of a work is illegal under copyright law. De-compilation would at best be a contract violation of a software product EULA.

There is no EULA for GPL code, there is only the GPL itself, and the GPL grants permissions for activities such as de-compilation.

Edited 2010-11-15 02:47 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: PolicyNodeImpl
by Hiev on Mon 15th Nov 2010 04:52 UTC in reply to "RE: PolicyNodeImpl"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

But the decompiled GPL code wasn't licensed under GPL license, wasn't?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: PolicyNodeImpl
by Soulbender on Mon 15th Nov 2010 04:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PolicyNodeImpl"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Your statement does not make sense. The "decompiled GPL code" is obviously under the GPL since you said that its, uhm, GPL. It can't both be GPL and not.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: PolicyNodeImpl
by boldingd on Tue 16th Nov 2010 01:22 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: PolicyNodeImpl"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Your statement does not make sense. The "decompiled GPL code" is obviously under the GPL since you said that its, uhm, GPL. It can't both be GPL and not.


Actually, it can; dual licensing is possible. Consider Qt, which is available under both the terms of the LGPL, and under a commercial development license.

As far as I can tell, the Classpath Exception is fairly similar to the LGPL. It allows you to link your own executables with the code covered by the Classpath exception, and release the whole under any license you want. In this case, the terms of the GPL would not cover the binary you release, even tho it includes code that normally would be.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: PolicyNodeImpl
by lemur2 on Mon 15th Nov 2010 05:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PolicyNodeImpl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

But the decompiled GPL code wasn't licensed under GPL license, wasn't?


If it was decompiled then placed into another source tree, then the resulting derived work would also need to be licensed under the GPL in order for Google to distribute it.

Google didn't distribute it. The resulting derived work is not part of Android. AFAIK it is used as test code only, in the process of making Android. In other words, this derived work is for internal use only. GPL license is not therefore required.

Edited 2010-11-15 05:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: PolicyNodeImpl
by umccullough on Mon 15th Nov 2010 05:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: PolicyNodeImpl"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Google didn't distribute it.


I beg to differ - decompiling a binary to source code and then making that source code publicly available is arguably a re-distribution of the original source.

Otherwise, any automated processing of the original sources would fall under the same rights, and people would be allowed to "compile and decompile" source code, labeling it as their own work, and distributing the resulting source under their own copyright. Which is what would have happened here (assuming the code was decompiled that is), even if no binaries were built and distributed from it.

In short, you can't just take a binary compiled from someone's copyrighted work and thusly remove their copyright and license via decompilation. The compiler isn't granted the right to remove the copyright... this goes back to the whole concept of "colors" seen by laws - this code file was a certain color, the resulting binary created from this code file was the same color, and the decompiled code created from the binary also becomes the same color - you can't just legally change the color.

http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23

Edited 2010-11-15 05:42 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: PolicyNodeImpl
by umccullough on Mon 15th Nov 2010 05:31 UTC in reply to "RE: PolicyNodeImpl"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

The first freedom allows you to run the code for the purpose of studying it and finding out how it works. The second freedom, "freedom to study how the program works" covers de-compilation. The last freedom covers re-distribution of modified versions.


However, the GPL doesn't grant you the right to redistribute the decompiled version under a different copyright owner and license... which in this case would seem to be part of the problem Google is facing.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: PolicyNodeImpl
by lemur2 on Mon 15th Nov 2010 05:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PolicyNodeImpl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"The first freedom allows you to run the code for the purpose of studying it and finding out how it works. The second freedom, "freedom to study how the program works" covers de-compilation. The last freedom covers re-distribution of modified versions.
However, the GPL doesn't grant you the right to redistribute the decompiled version under a different copyright owner and license... which in this case would seem to be part of the problem Google is facing. "

Apparently it is test code, used in the process of making Android, and it is not part of Android itself.

Google therefore didn't redistribute the code at all. The point about "the decompiled version under a different copyright owner and license" becomes a non-issue. The GPL permits anyone to take code, study it (including decompile it), modify it however they please, and run it (or modified versions of it) for any purpose.

The GPL license for derived works is only a requirement if one re-distributes the code to downstream recipients.

Edited 2010-11-15 05:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: PolicyNodeImpl
by umccullough on Mon 15th Nov 2010 05:49 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: PolicyNodeImpl"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

The GPL license for derived works is only a requirement if one re-distributes the code to downstream recipients.


If they never distributed the code, then why was it found?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: PolicyNodeImpl
by lemur2 on Mon 15th Nov 2010 05:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: PolicyNodeImpl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"The GPL license for derived works is only a requirement if one re-distributes the code to downstream recipients.
If they never distributed the code, then why was it found? "

Because it is in the source tree of their developmnet process. It is apparently used by Google for testing purposes when they make Android.

It is only Android itself that Google distribute. When you buy an Android phone or tablet, you don't get this derived work at all.

Therefore, Google don't need a license for the derived work ... all that they need (for their own internal purposes) is that they received the original work as GPL code. They may then use this code (internally) however they please.

AFAIK, this is the thrust of one of the legal defences that Google has announced. There is no valid complaint against what Google did with the code ... everything they did with it, it is permitted for them to do.

Edited 2010-11-15 05:59 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: PolicyNodeImpl
by umccullough on Mon 15th Nov 2010 05:58 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: PolicyNodeImpl"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Because it is in the source tree of their developmnet process.


WHICH IS PUBLICLY DISTRIBUTED!

Jeez, you have such a strange view of things sometimes.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: PolicyNodeImpl
by lemur2 on Mon 15th Nov 2010 06:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: PolicyNodeImpl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Because it is in the source tree of their developmnet process.
WHICH IS PUBLICLY DISTRIBUTED! Jeez, you have such a strange view of things sometimes. "

Well, the aim of copyright law is to prevent financial gain from someone else's work. Google putting that code in a git repository does not invoke an act that is punishable by copyright law. The act which is an actionable finding of a breach of coyright law happens if Google sells, in exchange for money, Oracle's code. Didn't happen.

So, if the git repository is found to be redistribution under the intent of copyright law (debatable) ... then Google will have to meet the conditions as required by copyright to redistribute it, and pay Oracle damages.

Oracle's damages: zero (because there is no part of the sale of the Android phones that icludes this code).

Action required by Google: comply with GPL license conditions = make the code in the git repository licensed as GPL.

It is a strange view of things that Oracle is owed some percentage take from the sale of Android phones for something which is not in an Android phone. It just doesn't work that way, sonny jim.

Edited 2010-11-15 06:22 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: PolicyNodeImpl
by saynte on Mon 15th Nov 2010 05:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: PolicyNodeImpl"
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

They distributed it:

http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/libcore.git;a=blob;f=supp...

That's why everyone knows that it looks decompiled.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: PolicyNodeImpl
by lemur2 on Mon 15th Nov 2010 06:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: PolicyNodeImpl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

They distributed it: http://android.git.kernel.org/?p=platform/libcore.git;a=blob;f=supp... That's why everyone knows that it looks decompiled.


If Oracle can mount an argument that having it in a git repository is redistribution, then Oracle do have a case that this code is derived from GPL code, and hence the derived work should itself be licesnsed by Google as GPL (since Oracle have convinced the court that it has been distributed to downstream recipients).

Fair enough (as long as Oracle can get the court to agree that Google re-distributed it, and not the Open Handset Alliance).

Financial damage to Oracle: zero.

Action required by Google: Amend the headers to credit Sun(Oracle) as co-authors of the derived work. Re-license that derived work as GPL. (Google are already providing the source code, so no corrective action is required there).

Court Costs: awarded to Oracle.

Next case.

Edited 2010-11-15 06:10 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: PolicyNodeImpl
by umccullough on Mon 15th Nov 2010 06:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: PolicyNodeImpl"
umccullough Member since:
2006-01-26

Action required by Google: Amend the headers to credit Sun(Oracle) as co-authors of the derived work. Re-license that derived work as GPL. (Google are already providing the source code, so no corrective action is required there).


I agree - this would be the proper resolution (or simply, remove the file entirely, demonstrating that it is no longer distributed, and not used in any derivative work), and *should* solve the problem morally for all parties.

However, once copyright infringement has been proven to occur, Oracle could continue pursuing monetary damages... I'm not sure how they could ever quantify any in this case, but who knows what they have up their sleeves ;)

Edited 2010-11-15 06:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: PolicyNodeImpl
by saynte on Mon 15th Nov 2010 06:27 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: PolicyNodeImpl"
saynte Member since:
2007-12-10

I think being on the wider Internet constitutes distribution, we accept this definition at any other time and now should be no different.

I can't predict at all the trial outcome, but if they were to find for Oracle on this point, it would damage Google's reputation.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: PolicyNodeImpl
by cheemosabe on Mon 15th Nov 2010 09:54 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: PolicyNodeImpl"
cheemosabe Member since:
2009-11-29

I think being on the wider Internet constitutes distribution


I thought being on the wider Internet constituted "making available" not "distributing". Am I wrong?

Reply Score: 1

Comment by FunkyELF
by FunkyELF on Mon 15th Nov 2010 12:56 UTC
FunkyELF
Member since:
2006-07-26

Regarding the copyright infringement claim, Google claims, among many other things, fair use, that the bits used are too small to constitute copyright infringement.


Yeah.... 300 lines of Perl, C, or Python would be copyright infringement. 300 lines of Java and you barely have Hello World.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by FunkyELF
by lemur2 on Mon 15th Nov 2010 13:06 UTC in reply to "Comment by FunkyELF"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Regarding the copyright infringement claim, Google claims, among many other things, fair use, that the bits used are too small to constitute copyright infringement.


Yeah.... 300 lines of Perl, C, or Python would be copyright infringement. 300 lines of Java and you barely have Hello World.
"

300 lines? You have got to be kidding!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work
In United States copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work.


300 lines simply isn't going to be a major element of anything these days. You would need more like 30,000 or even 300,000 copied lines to make a copyright case in this day and age.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by FunkyELF
by WereCatf on Mon 15th Nov 2010 16:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by FunkyELF"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

300 lines simply isn't going to be a major element of anything these days. You would need more like 30,000 or even 300,000 copied lines to make a copyright case in this day and age.

Lemur, you are so full of sh*t that it's imbelievable. Copyrighted work is copyrighted work, regardless of the size of the work in question. Otherwise all companies would need to do is just copy all files with less than 30,000 lines in them from any open-source product they'd want and relicense them under a proprietary license and claim them as theirs. Hell, I could just copy all files with less than or equal to 30,000 lines in them from LibreOffice, claim they are all mine and relicense them under a closed license, and start distributing it all as mine.

Are you REALLY certain you want to go there?

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by FunkyELF
by Valhalla on Mon 15th Nov 2010 20:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by FunkyELF"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Copyrighted work is copyrighted work, regardless of the size of the work in question

But not everything is copyrightable. From what I've seen this is merely declarations in header files, not code (or am I mistaken?). Declarations can be considered as facts, and thus not copyrightable (also, was there ever a final ruling on public api in the SCO case?).

Things that are not copyrightable:
titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents.

In my opinion either this copyright infringement is a red herring or there has to be more, I can't see them actually going to court over this, it seems far too weak in my (admittedly IANAL) eyes.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by FunkyELF
by lemur2 on Mon 15th Nov 2010 22:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by FunkyELF"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"300 lines simply isn't going to be a major element of anything these days. You would need more like 30,000 or even 300,000 copied lines to make a copyright case in this day and age.


Lemur, you are so full of sh*t that it's imbelievable. Copyrighted work is copyrighted work, regardless of the size of the work in question. Otherwise all companies would need to do is just copy all files with less than 30,000 lines in them from any open-source product they'd want and relicense them under a proprietary license and claim them as theirs. Hell, I could just copy all files with less than or equal to 30,000 lines in them from LibreOffice, claim they are all mine and relicense them under a closed license, and start distributing it all as mine. Are you REALLY certain you want to go there?
"

Copyright law is copyright law. The size of the copying (relative to the whole of the work) is a crucial element of the law. In order to infringe copyright, one must have copied and then re-sold a "major element" of an earlier work.

Now, if the earlier work was 600 lines, then 300 lines was copied into a derived work of, say, 900 lines, then clearly this is a major element copied. The resulting 900 lines is clearly a derived work, under the definition of copyright law. No problem.

Hower, if the original work was 300,000 lines, and what was copied into another work was only 300 lines, then a perfectly valid legal defense arises that the second work is not a derivative of the earlier work, under the definitions of copyright law.

This is not just me saying it, this is the law of the land.

That is why I can tell you that as far as understanding of copyright goes, this is the best of times and this is the worst of times ... and I would have no fear of being liable under copyright law even though I had used those particular words.

The extent of the copying (compared to the whole of the work) does matter. Very much so.

Edited 2010-11-15 22:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by FunkyELF
by TheGZeus on Mon 15th Nov 2010 15:53 UTC in reply to "Comment by FunkyELF"
TheGZeus Member since:
2010-05-19

Hah.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by FunkyELF
by Moochman on Mon 15th Nov 2010 16:53 UTC in reply to "Comment by FunkyELF"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Hmm... I really can't decide whether to mod you Funny or Troll.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by FunkyELF
by boldingd on Tue 16th Nov 2010 00:52 UTC in reply to "Comment by FunkyELF"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

At 300 lines, you're barely past the import statements.

Import Java.Sun.NonOrthogonality
Import Java.Sun.OverEngineering

And so on.

Reply Score: 1

How come
by vodoomoth on Mon 15th Nov 2010 14:02 UTC
vodoomoth
Member since:
2010-03-30

How come that every poster so far has been oblivious to this bit of the news item:


"Google states further that Oracle has redacted or deleted from the materials shown in Exhibit J both expressive material and copyright headers that appear in the actual materials, which are significant elements and features of the files in question," the filing reads.


I think this (if true of course) casts some serious doubts about the legitimacy of Oracle's copyright violation claim. I for one call it "twisting reality to suit your agenda" (TM)(C). I guess people have some judgmental ability left when they hit the courthouse?

Reply Score: 3

RE: How come
by Valhalla on Mon 15th Nov 2010 19:44 UTC in reply to "How come"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


"Google states further that Oracle has redacted or deleted from the materials shown in Exhibit J both expressive material and copyright headers that appear in the actual materials, which are significant elements and features of the files in question," the filing reads.

If this is true then the copyright infringement is dead in the water. IIRC this is what SCO did, removed/edited certain parts from the originals in order to make the alleged copies look more similar. Either way this copyright case seems very weak as it is, something tells me this is just for show and that the real meat will be the patent dispute.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: How come
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Nov 2010 01:26 UTC in reply to "RE: How come"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" "Google states further that Oracle has redacted or deleted from the materials shown in Exhibit J both expressive material and copyright headers that appear in the actual materials, which are significant elements and features of the files in question," the filing reads.
If this is true then the copyright infringement is dead in the water. IIRC this is what SCO did, removed/edited certain parts from the originals in order to make the alleged copies look more similar. Either way this copyright case seems very weak as it is, "

Quite so. Even more to the point is that the requirements of the original license have been largely met. Even if the work is held to be a derived work under copyright laws (very debatable), then Google have published the source code of the derived work, as required by its GPL license.

So what did Google do wrong that caused any damage to Oracle? Oracle haven't identified any damage yet, and that is a serious problem for Oracle's case.

something tells me this is just for show and that the real meat will be the patent dispute.


I don't believe there is any meat at all.

The real intent and purpose of the Oracle lawsuit might best be found in this speculation:
http://www.entirelyopensource.com/Blog-and-Opinion/The-Apple-Oracle...
It’s really quite clever.Tie Google up in court, sign a deal with Apple to coordinate development of Java, and ignore the open source community.It’s all about the Great Game, and you’re not invited to play


The only problem I suppose is that if Oracle are not able to state any actual valid claims against Google, then it won't even go to court.

Edited 2010-11-16 01:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2