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 447540
To view parent comment, 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 UTC 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

RE[4]: I went over the code
by Lennie on Thu 28th Oct 2010 23:41 in reply to "RE[3]: I went over the code"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Maybe the API-documentation was the source for Android from which they derived the function list and the source for the API-documentation was the source from Oracle/Sun.

Maybe that is allowed by the copyright law, I don't know.

Although, I have to say, I can't find a API-document that proves this.

Edited 2010-10-28 23:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2