Oops: Android contains directly copied Java code, strengthening Oracle’s case

[rst]

For what it's worth, this still at least looks like it's mostly code from test frameworks, which doesn't necessarily even run on an Android device itself. So it could likely be dropped from the source distributions without compromising the functionality of any device. (Distributing it would still have been infringement --- but a lot more easily remedied than it might have been otherwise.)

Specifically, if we look at the PDFs from the original source here:

  http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-evidence-supports-oracles-case.html

six of the seven Android files are in subpackages of "org.apache.harmony.security.tests". The Android version of Mueller's example number six, strangely, has no package declaration at all, but the name of the class (PolicyNodeImpl) at least is the same as one that has been identified as unit test code the last time it came up in this connection.

(BTW, the "org.apache.harmony" package prefix doesn't necessarily mean that the ASF ever distributed the particular file in question; that PolicyNodeImpl.java file was distributed by Google with an Apache Harmony package declaration, but had never been distributed by the ASF itself.)

[spiffworks]

About the files with the Oracle copyright header, it seems to be on some remote tree that I can't even browse. Can you opine on whether it was ever actually shipped?

[ergo98]

This is the most important post in this thread. It looks like they created their own "conformance tests", in some cases using the Java implementation as the baseline. On the scale of concerns, that is somewhere around 0.

[blinkingled]

Google should have done everything they could to buy Sun or at least buy the Java IP and Engineering team. Heck they could have bought them out fully and sold the uninteresting parts.

That would have been better for two reasons - Oracle is screwing up bad with the JCP and it's going to hurt Java - May be Google could have been a better steward. Secondly Google relies so much on Java not only for Android but also for many other things - it is almost idiotic not to buy the IP.

I guess they had their reasons to not pursue - I can't imagine what those were.

[rst]

As I recall, IBM had an offer out for Sun, and Sun fell into Oracle's hands quite suddenly when IBM and Sun management couldn't agree on terms. It might be that Google was expecting that IBM would get Sun, and that they were OK with that, given IBM's generally more, shall we say, less frenzied approach toward monetizing its intellectual property...

[guelo]

Good point, Oracle paid $5.6 billion for Sun, Google could have afforded that, they just offered $6 billion for Groupon. OTOH, that seems like a lot of money to pay just for Java.

[c2]

Somehow I think this lawsuit will cost Google somewhat less then the 8 billion dollars it would have required to buy Sun outright.

This is bad, but I still don't yet believe buying Sun would have been the better option.

[fedd]

> Oracle is screwing up bad with the JCP and it's going to hurt Java

i was far from all this politics, but made a few google searches - is this about ASF leaving JCP? then, as far as i understood, these issues are all related, to Harmony, suing etc.

so maybe Java wouldn't be hurt? just specs would be changed more tyrannically...

(java my favorite language, don't make me sad :)

[mbreese]

Direct source link: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-evidence-support...

[stevenbedrick]

Thank you. Maybe I'm blind, or something, but I sure couldn't find a link to the original source on the Engadget article page.

[DougBTX]

Cheers. That's the first time I've seen black italic text mean "hyperlink".

[orangecat]

From a quick look it definitely looks like copyright infringement, but in a non-critical area of Android. Google may end up paying a small fine over this, but it doesn't address Oracle's central claim that the Dalvik VM infringes their patents.

[piotrSikora]

It doesn't matter whatever it's critical area or not... it's still copyright infringement.

[gawker]

I wonder if the code was copied before Google bought Android or after. And would they be able to just pay licensing to Oracle for the code?

I don't get one thing. I thought Java is supposedly open-source? How come there's proprietary source code? Or are these files part of a particular Java library developed by Sun that are not part of the Java that they open-sourced?

[SeveredCross]

The issue is not with the open-source portion, it's with relicensing. The implication is that parts of the code that are in Android's Java implementation were copied outright and then relicensed to APL, which is not allowed--the original code is GPL, and must stay GPL, unless the original author decides to license it under a different license.

[Tyrannosaurs]

The timing is irrelevant. It's almost certain that when Google bought Android, they'd have taken on any legal liabilities that went with it. It's possible that the previous owners might have agreed to keep them but it would be very unusual for that to be the case.

As for could the just pay Oracle to license the code - they could have done at the time had Oracle, or Sun as it would have been at the time, agreed but they didn't. It would seem highly unlikely given that Oracle are currently suing them that they'd be willing to enter into such a license with Google now.

[lepton]

Open-source code is still copyrighted.

[fluidcruft]

I think these are from the Java compliance test suite used to test that a Java implementation conforms to the specification. Sun had committed to releasing the compliance tests, but then dragged its feet and it never happened.

[slowpoison]

ZDNet and Ars refuted Florian's claims, but according to this Engadget update, it is still a violation:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/21/android-source-code-java-...

[joe_the_user]

From Slashdot:

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1960862&cid=349...

"In Florian's paper, he points these out as Sun PROPRIETARY / CONFIDENTIAL. However, it looks like several of the sources come from Sun's mmademo, linked here [java2s.com]. In this rendition of the document, each source file's license is a permissive one by Sun (i.e., not proprietary / confidential)."

IE, the header in the distribution may read incorrectly that the files are SUN proprietary.

[Sephr]

You could've fixed the "here" link for Hacker News. Why not replace the java2s.com with http://www.java2s.com/Open-Source/Java-Document/IDE-Netbeans...?

[maethorechannen]

The source code the guy links to comes from Apache Harmony, so if anyone actually has committed copyright infringement it could well be the ASF as the source of the infringement. I wonder if Oracle would go after Apache as well.

[georgemcbay]

Unless you supply specific links to code that you're sure is from Apache, you may want to read this:

https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/read_beyond_the_he...

There was confusion about this when the first bits of code that were obviously Sun's implementations were found in Android code... However, according to Apache, Google slapped the Apache Harmony license into the headers themselves and the files were never really part of Harmony.

[yanw]

Given the legal complexity and politics involved Engadget shouldn't just echo the rhetoric of a notorious Microsoft lackey.

[kenjackson]

And the reporter is actually an ex-copyright and trademark attorney. So he does at least have rich domain knowledge in the law, and he has been following this case carefully.

[blub]

When making such strong statements one should provide proof. Edit: I am referring to the parent.

[yuhong]

It is easily verifiable by running JAD yourself.

[kprobst]

um, this isn't Slashdot. Feel free to address the issues in his analysis and comment on them.

[shareme]

The problem is we do not have the full story. For example, there is a certain clause of GPL2 that states if certain conditions are met that the full work does not have to be under GPL2 when a small portion may be under GPL2.

Plus, the aspect of when Java was GPL'd does that pertain to everything in the distribution or does at eh time Sun's disclaimers of some being not GPL'd hold legal weight pertaining to whether its a legal enforceable GPL license.

[dchest]

From GPL2:

"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't mean that you can copy small portions of GPLed code as you wish and use them in your projects; it means that the original copyright holder for those small portions can apply any license to them, which means that by default all rights are reserved by the original author of those portions.

[sudonim]

Seems in direct conflict with the "Don't be evil" company motto... unless google employees think IP theft isn't evil.

[wmf]

These days college students think that one person doing ten people's homework is "collaboration", so I can imagine a lazy Googler decompiling some Sun class files. "After all, they're only tests, not real code."

[grandalf]

Yes this is bad for Java, but it's good for Python.