Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 16th Sep 2012 16:53 UTC
Google There's a bit of a story going on between Google, Acer, and Alibaba, a Chinese mobile operating system vendor. Acer wanted to ship a device with Alibaba's operating system, but Google asked them not to, and Acer complied. The reason is that Acer is a member of the Open Handset Alliance, which prohibits the promotion of non-standard Android implementations - exactly what Alibaba is shipping. On top of that, Alibaba's application store hosts pirated Android applications, including ones from Google.
Permalink for comment 535390
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Wait a minute
by atsureki on Mon 17th Sep 2012 03:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wait a minute"
atsureki
Member since:
2006-03-12

That is not true, they didn't use Sun's Java code. And I don't think that fork means what you think it does.

Quoting Wikipedia: "In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software."(emphasis mine)[1]

In contrast, what Alibaba did is take Android code and build their own, incompatible OS from it. So that is a fork.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)



Like I said, page 81 of Oracle's opening statement slideshow contains snippets of code that were copied unmodified from Java into Android. So fork, even by that strict definition, is partially true, just as reimplementation by a strict definition is only partially true, as it wasn't done cleanly. They accessed Sun's original code to "help" them copy it. Maybe that approach wasn't strictly authorized, but the leaked e-mails in the linked PDF establish a firm pattern of looking the other way. They also establish that Google's explicit goal was to get Java technology without accepting Sun's terms, which is precisely what they're now accusing Alibaba of doing, while simultaneously maintaining the narrative that Android is not proprietary.

Reply Parent Score: 2