Re^6: Copyright on languages

[BrowserUk]

Could you point me to this subset of entry points?

I know no more than you. I've been following along on potted summaries of the case, much less than the transcripts.

But given the (debatable) nature of what constitutes "the Java API", whether you divide it up according to AWT .v. Swing .v. other; or server-side .v. client-side; or Java v1 .v. v2 (v3,v4,v5); etc., those 37 packages constitute a subset of 166 packages that (currently) make up the 'the full Java API (set)'.

There are also 3 specific functions that are cited:

1. The rangeCheck method in TimSort.java and ComparableTimSort.Java
2. Source code in seven “Impl.java” files and the one “ACL” file
3. The English-language comments in CodeSourceTest.java and CollectionCertStoreParametersTest.java

[ikegami]

1. Those are the "9 lines of code" I mentioned earlier.

Not all of the Java libraries were written by Sun or Oracle. There are a lot of 3rd party contributions. timsort was a 3rd party contribution. One of timsort's developers copied an internal Java function as an interim solution until he could link to that function directly. This function is a simple array bound check function a 1st year CS student could write call rangeCheck.

That 3rd party contributor was Google. When it came to implementing timsort for the Android, Google took their contribution and accidentally failed to replace rangeCheck. A minor mistake (Copyright violation) of no consequence (outside of this trial).

2 & 3. Oracle admitted these files probably never made it to a phone. They were in a directory called "test". On their cross of Oracle's witness, Google made it sound like they were part of a developer's sandbox.

Google: Do you know if these files are part of a handset?

Dr. Mitchell: I don't recall that, no.

Google: The other files of the 12. These files all have the word "test" in them?

Dr. Mitchell: No.....

Google: para 22. Are the 8 impl files on the left... The Android name has the name "test" in it.

Dr. Mitchell: The path has "test".

Google: All 8 have the word "test"?

Dr. Mitchell: Yes, I think that's true.

Google: You don't actually know if any of these files were compiled and placed on a handset?

Dr. Mitchell: (a bit shaky) I don't have a reason to believe they were put on a handset.

Google: So the only thing you're aware of that you're sure made it onto a phone were these 9 lines of code in rangecheck?

Dr. Mitchell: [pauses] I believe that's correct.

(May not be word-for-word accurate.)

[BrowserUk]

. timsort was a 3rd party contribution. One of timsort's developers copied an internal Java function as an interim solution until he could link to that function directly. This function is a simple array bound check function a 1st year CS student could write call rangeCheck.

That 3rd party contributor was Google. When it came to implementing timsort for the Android, Google took their contribution and accidentally failed to replace rangeCheck

I read an article that commented on that particular part of the suit, though I can't find it now. The (possibly erroneous) conclusion drawn went:

Oracle are suing Google for reusing a trivial piece of code that they freely contributed to Java.

The reasoning behind Oracle's suit seems pretty Open .. and Shut:Oracle and Java: Mobile dev FAIL dooms Ellison's future

[ikegami]

Superficially, it may sound like Oracle is suing Google for Google code, but I don't think it's actually true. While timsort came from Google, it's my understanding that Google has no Copyright to timsort's rangeCheck as it was borrowed from Java in the first place.

Even it was was borrowed legitimately, it's much better for Google to accept that Android infringed on those nine lines than it would be to claim it has some kind of license to them. If it did, that would break Android's independent implementation claims.