|
|
|
| Authored by: Ian Al on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 05:07 AM EDT |
I suppose that the additional lawyering cost of doing this out-weighs the
maximum possible damages from the copying of nine lines.
For instance, if you overlook the names and short phrases, the standard language
elements like '}', the functional parts and the standard math (like the
comparison of two values) then what creative expression is there left to
copyright? Would there be any more than the blank lines?
---
Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 13 2012 @ 05:21 AM EDT |
Q. The rangecheck function: Did you copy the Sun code while working
on Android?
A. [Bloch] I did that while working on Timsort, and it was
during the period I was employed at Google, but not for Google. It was something
I
wrote on my own for OpenJDK.
...
Q. Why did you copy the rangecheck
function for Timsort?
A. It's good engineering to reuse the same
function if possible [The context here was that he expected to fold Timsort into
a public version
of Java, and at that point it would make sense to call the
existing rangecheck function from the new code rather than writing a different
one.] Day 4
testimony, Joshua Bloch as Oracle's
witness.
Takeaways, 1. Bloch
wrote the rangecheck code the second time for OpenJDK intending it to be
available for anyone to use.
2. He copied it from inside his head, not from
Sun. Application of the Oracle closed shop theory will turn all software into
write once,
forget about using it ever again
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
