Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Oct 2010 20:07 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Legal Now, this is an interesting development in the ongoing war against Android. Oracle didn't just sue Google for allegedly infringing its Java patents; it also claimed copyright infringement. Oracle has amended its complaint, and, fair is fair, they've got the code to prove it: indeed, Android contains code that appears to be copied verbatim from Java - mind you, appears. However, the code in question comes straight from Apache's Harmony project, which raises the question - would a respected and long-established cornerstone of the open source world really accept tainted code in the first place?
Thread beginning with comment 447505
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I went over the code
by Matzon on Thu 28th Oct 2010 20:56 UTC in reply to "I went over the code"
Matzon
Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree.

Why are the methods in the same order?
Same private method names - what are the chances of that??

probably decompiled and then re-created. tsk tsk.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: I went over the code
by Lennie on Thu 28th Oct 2010 23:19 in reply to "RE[2]: I went over the code"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I couldn't find anything in the Harmony-project SVN which made me think this came from there.

Not in incubator either.

So the license at the top is a mistake, atleast.

Maybe someone ran a tool to place such a license at the top of files which didn't have anything yet...?

The code from Google and Oracle/Sun looks very similar, their is definitely a common origin. The quesion obviously is, what is the origin. It could have been generated based on some specification for the x509-certificate that this deals with.

But the creator (or person that imported the source into the Android git repository) should be able to point out where it came from.

Or completely the other way around, there might be a test-suite which tried to use this API and they created a similair API because it was needed to pass some tests.

Edited 2010-10-28 23:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Why would it have to be decompiled? Its also present in Open JDK.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Replying to myself now that i understand the matter a little more clearly.

The code in question is not from Harmony, its from OpenJDK. That's what I knew. For some reason, I thought that the parent was un aware that Sun Java is OpenJDK ( minus a few parts no one really cares that much about). There have been many people on many discussion boards that have made that mistake, so that's what I assumed the parent was inferring.

However, in my rush and caffeine deprived mind, I neglected to imagine the more likely case: Google needed the code, but didn't want to copy the GPL'd Open JDK directly to their BSD code as that would not work licence wise. So they tried to clean room it by decompiling the binary ( my guess anyway). That makes sense to me anyway. Some one did the same thing and came up with the exact same code as Google has in Android ( very similar with a few odd quirks).

Now does this either condemn Google or Exonerate it? I have no idea. I am not a lawyer, nor a psychic.

Reply Parent Score: 2