back to article Google accused of copying (more) Oracle Java code

A well-known open source advocate has accused Google of copying at least seven and up to as many as 43 Android files directly from Oracle's Java source code. It's unclear whether the files were actually included with the shipping version of Android, but they were open-sourced by Google under an Apache license, and that alone …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. FocalLength


    2.2 Froyo - Yes

    3.3 Gingerbread - No

    2.3 Gingerbread - Yes!

    How's that for a first post?

  2. CABVolunteer


    So who is the "well-known open source advocate" referred to in the first paragraph?

    Whilst Florian Mueller is quoted later in the article, "well-known" or even "notorious" he may be, but surely no-one would consider him an advocate of open-source. The question is just what is he an advocate for?

    1. Nick Kew


      Anonymous Coward hasn't heard of Florian Mueller.

      Those of us who are active open source developers have. He's a very big name. And in contrast to Anonymous Coward, he understands the importance to open source of honesty and respect for each other's work, whether that work is open source or not.

  3. Waffles666


    So if these files were open sourced then Google can use them and the only thing they have done wrong is re-licence them under apache?

    Maybe I'm reading the article wrong but this doesn't seem to have any major implications for android.

  4. John Lilburne

    Google have a free pass ...

    ... to copy and exploit whatever IP they happen to spider.

  5. RichyS

    Due diligence?

    I hope Google were a bit more rigorous in the open sourcing of VP8 as WebM. Maybe Google are a little nervous, and that's why they won't indemnify users of WebM against patent infringement.

    Hmmm. Sloppy.

  6. Nick Kew

    Code from Apache

    All Apache code is open. Therefore you (or anyone) can check for yourself whether any particular file comes from Apache.

    If, as happened before, journalists print a lot of misleading nonsense, then Apache might feel compelled to correct it.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    death to all titles

    More at groklaw - this guy reckons it's SCO mark II


  8. argatxa

    some interesting possible explanation

  9. poonab

    Which android are you running?

    Thought gingerbread was 2.3? Does 3.3 include time travel as standard?

  10. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Virtual Pharming and Novel Pharmaceuticals in and for AI Growth Industries

    So, finally it is realised that the Google search engine algorithms are nothing more worthy than a phorm of phish in earlier code for a Dodgy Cloning of Intellectual Property Operation, which all sounds very Social Network/Zuckerberg Facebook like?

    Is that typical atypical Uncle Sam and Wall Street Modus Operandi and Vivendi ..... to live and thrive and drive off the strive of A.N.Others? ......... which is a parasitic and quite catastrophic phorm of IQ?

  11. AdamWill

    happens all the time

    It's kinda funny to see something like this get blown up as a huge deal in the press. Really, people stick the wrong headers on unimportant source files all the time. Just this morning I found a couple in a project maintained by a relatively big name which have GPL headers where they're clearly intended to have LGPL headers. End of the world? No. It's just a run-of-the-mill smeg-up. Given the circumstances this will likely wind up as a claim in the court case, but it's really not a big deal. People make bigger screw-ups with licensing all the time. Developers aren't lawyers, and they often get it wrong.

  12. David 138


    Open sources is to confusing no wonder 90% of the software is shady.

  13. Anton Ivanov

    You get whatever Xmas you deserve

    For F*** sake, in a world where Apple succeeded in making developers write in objective C anything and everything is possible.

    Google should have taken the easy route out and just used Python or something totally new altogether. Anything but the legal minefiled that it is "Java which is not Java". We have already seen that movie with Microsoft. Write once, run nowhere is not a game which anyone but the language "owner" can win.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Silly me

    There was I thinking Google must have some shit-hot developers to be able to push out so many services and applications so quickly. How naive.

  15. Anonymous Coward

    I have to ask....

    I'm not involved with developing at any level so answer me this....

    If say, 5 lines of code written in a langauge define a task or function and is written in such a way that conforms to some standard, isnt it quite likely that code would appear in software that looks the same as that written by another company?

    Dont flame me to hard, its just an honest question.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like