Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 16th Sep 2012 16:53 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 535485
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-06-18
Indeed two instances of copying were part of the lawsuit: One was deemed so insignificant that the judge doubted even its copyrightability. The other was never part of any shipped Android device. This does not qualify as fork in any sensible way.
One commenter on Andy Rubin's Google+ post explained it through examples:
Apache Harmony is an implementation of Java
Mono is an implementation of .NET
LibreOffice is a fork of OpenOffice.org
X.org is a fork of XFree86
I hope it is more clear now.
Alibaba using Android code is no problem, the license allows that. Amazon and BlackBerry do it too. But Acer cannot make incompatible products from Android code as long as they are member of the OHA.
Edited 2012-09-17 17:37 UTC