|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Saturday, April 14 2012 @ 07:51 PM EDT |
See why I told you to wait? With legal
stuff, you can't be sure of *anything*
until it's settled for sure by the
evidence at trial.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Sunday, April 15 2012 @ 12:18 AM EDT |
Google has already indicated what they have to say about Oracle's purported
discovery that the infringing source code can still be downloaded from their
site.
The code that they say was removed from Android was removed from Android. They
said that the only code that was not removed was the nine line rangeCheck
function from TimSort.java and another file whose name I don't recall at the
moment, and those 9 lines are de minimus, fair use, or whatever. Oracle's
"download" was actually a request for the old version of the sources
from the version control system, which causes it to use the archives to recreate
the files as they existed in the old infringing version. Since the version
control system stores changes to the files rather than the old versions of the
files themselves, it is accurate to say that when Oracle checked out an old
version they caused the vcs to recreate the file.
I find it ironic that Google's case is even better then they are saying. When I
looked at the Android sources recently to check on this I found that even those
nine lines in two files were removed in a commit dated 3 December 2010, with the
call to rangeCheck replaced with a call to a functionally equivalent public
static method that is now in java.util.Arrays.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 03:22 AM EDT |
| -- [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
