2 ms·

Hi earl, I was informed of you calling me a "liar" here and I understand words like that are used in online discussions without being meant personally. Anyway,

Hi earl, I was informed of you calling me a "liar" here and I understand words like that are used in online discussions without being meant personally. Anyway, I had provided links to where the code could be found -- in the public repositories of Android 2.2 and 2.3 (i.e., the currently most relevant versions for smartphones). And in addition to the general repository, the code could also be found in various source availability packages published by Motorola, LG and Samsung: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/android-device-makers-distribute-oracle.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/android-device-maker... Dell and HTC left those files out. Most of the confusion resulted from a very aggressive blog post by Ed Burnette, who runs a ZDNet blog that officially covers all sorts of software development topics but is overwhelmingly about Android evangelism. I'm an Android user, too; my blog is hosted by Google, and I use other Google services (even Buzz, really). But I'm skeptical of the IP situation concerning Android (and WebM, to be honest).

earl 16y ago
I just reread your original post [1]. I'd like to apologize -- I just skimmed your article and those by Burnette [2] and ars [3]. I came away with a very wrong impression. The relevant quote is "I have discovered additional material that Oracle might present to the court as examples of copyright-infringing material in the Android codebase" [1]. Which is indeed true. The other articles draw a distinction between code in the repo under unit tests and code that is built and deployed onto devices. Which is helpful to Google, but still much worse than there simply being no Oracle owned code in the repo. So, my apologies. It would probably have been better if your original article more clearly distinguished between code in the repo and code that becomes a binary and is deployed onto the android devices, but it was also my responsibility as a reader to pick up on that. [1] http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-evidence-supports-oracles-case.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-evidence-support... [2] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/oops-no-copied-java-code-or-weapons-of-mass-destruction-found-in-android/2162 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/oops-no-copied-java-code-... [3] http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/01/new-alleged-evidence-of-android-infringement-isnt-a-smoking-gun.ars http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/01/new-alleged-...

earl 16y ago

I just reread your original post [1]. I'd like to apologize -- I just skimmed your article and those by Burnette [2] and ars [3]. I came away with a very wrong impression. The relevant quote is "I have discovered additional material that Oracle might present to the court as examples of copyright-infringing material in the Android codebase" [1]. Which is indeed true. The other articles draw a distinction between code in the repo under unit tests and code that is built and deployed onto devices. Which is helpful to Google, but still much worse than there simply being no Oracle owned code in the repo. So, my apologies. It would probably have been better if your original article more clearly distinguished between code in the repo and code that becomes a binary and is deployed onto the android devices, but it was also my responsibility as a reader to pick up on that. [1] http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-evidence-supports-oracles-case.html http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-evidence-support... [2] http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/oops-no-copied-java-code-or-weapons-of-mass-destruction-found-in-android/2162 http://www.zdnet.com/blog/burnette/oops-no-copied-java-code-... [3] http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/01/new-alleged-evidence-of-android-infringement-isnt-a-smoking-gun.ars http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/01/new-alleged-...