Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Oct 2010 20:07 UTC, submitted by poundsmack

Thread beginning with comment 447502
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: I went over the code
by Delgarde on Thu 28th Oct 2010 22:45
in reply to "RE: I went over the code"
Absolutely - everything about those comparisons screams "decompiler". All the names that would appear in the bytecode (class name, field names) are identical; all local variables have been given obviously machine-assigned names based on their type (set1, flag1, etc).
Looks awfully damning... if this code really came from Harmony, the Apache guys have been *really* careless about the code they accept.
RE[2]: I went over the code
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Fri 29th Oct 2010 02:47
in reply to "RE: I went over the code"
It's a rip off.
http://www.binplay.com/2010/10/look-at-copied-oracle-code.html
http://www.binplay.com/2010/10/look-at-copied-oracle-code.html
And yet, reading Oracle's code once, I can write the code that is very similar to the one found in Harmony. That, btw, would not constitute a copyright infringement. (Since it follows common industry conventions and has to conform to a published specification)
But then again, I am a Java dev for 10 years now. And Java has common naming conventions.
EDIT: Interesting point, the code is in the repository, but it's a test...
Edited 2010-10-29 23:11 UTC
RE[2]: I went over the code
by Kebabbert on Mon 1st Nov 2010 11:27
in reply to "RE: I went over the code"
In how many ways can you declare 10 variables? The answer is 10! = 3.6 million ways. Almost 4 million ways.
The probability that the Google programmer chose exactly the same ordering as Oracle, would be 1 in 4 million. Highly unlikely.
Chances are more than 99.99999% the code is a copy.
Member since:
2009-08-26
It's a rip off.
http://www.binplay.com/2010/10/look-at-copied-oracle-code.html