|
|
|
| Authored by: BitOBear on Wednesday, May 16 2012 @ 11:04 PM EDT |
Being "identical too" and being "copied from" are two
different states resulting from different predicate conditions.
According to what is in the record, as clarified by others here (I don't have
the record), some guy made it and put it into the java runtime. At a later date,
when he was no longer sun's employee he -also- put it into OpenJDK. He may or
may not have done this as part of job he was doing for Google since Google was
paying his salary and (maybe or not) telling him to continue his contributions
to Java in general. [I seem to recall that he said he kept working on Java
because it was a passion and personal investment, not because it was a duty of
his position at Google.]
So the original author added the same code to OpenJDK, and Sun/Oracle then
-gave- -that- -out- willfully (but perhaps unaware of its status as identical
code) under the GPL.
Google Android "copied it from" OpenJDK, and re-released it in a
non-infringing way by honoring the GPL and re-releasing it under GPL as
required.
Now, can OpenJDK -run- without rangeCheck()? No, or at least it would have to
replace it. Which is the -identical- amount of dependency in the OpenJDK as
there was in Android.
Google may have forgotten to ask whether Sun knew, or should have known, that
rangeCheck() was necessary for OpenJDK and that it supplied rangeCheck() as part
of OpenJDK.
As a Matter Of Law, Goggle can not be "infringing" a license it does
in fact have to this code by doing exactly what the license required.
If Google needs and should have known and all that, then Sun was in the
-identical- position before they gave the code out under the GPL. In fact Sun
was in a -better- position to know since -it- -had- the original to compare too
the donation and it knew the author in project one and the donor in project two
were the same person.
So Google should seek a Judgement as a Matter Of Law (rule 50?) motion that
using the GPL code in a GPL project was legal and non-infringing since that is
the terms of use written in that GPL license.
Boies repeatedly said "Google had no license" to the jury, but Google
did. Boies lied. That's grounds right there.
Donor guy may have made a mistake, but it was -Sun's- duty to catch and fix that
mistake, not Google's.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
