4 ms·

FUD. The ruling [1] [2] draws a bright line between what is copyrightable and what is not. As much as Microsoft would like to kill Wine and ReactOS, independe

by csense 14y ago

FUD. The ruling [1] [2] draws a bright line between what is copyrightable and what is not. As much as Microsoft would like to kill Wine and ReactOS, independent implementation is always permissible [3]. As for Google's copying of "key source code:" An individual Google engineer copied a nine-line function called rangeCheck(), which validated some numerical parameters in the Java implementation of Timsort [4], from his previous job at Sun. When Google became aware of the code's provenance, it was removed from Android. [1] http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120531172522459 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120531172522... [2] http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf [3] As far as copyright is concerned. Patents specifically forbid independent implementation. The problems with software patents are a whole article in themselves. [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timsort http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timsort

barredo 14y ago
(preface: You're not wrong. I'm just adding more links, some data, and quotes to the conversation) > "If I did, it was a mistake," Bloch said, "and I'm sorry I did it." > The nine lines of rangeCheck code were removed from Android in version 4.0 of the operating system. http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/19/2961128/google-chief-java-architect-likely-i-copied-sun-code-in-android http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/19/2961128/google-chief-java-... -- I know it's not good when linking to FOSS, but could not find another source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/andy-rubin-knew-that-clean-room.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/andy-rubin-knew-that-clea... > Andy Rubin wrote: > My reasoning is that either a) we'll partner with Sun as contemplated in our recent discussions or b) we'll take a license. I think a clean-room implementation is unlikely because of the team[']s prior knowledge, and it would be uncharacteristically aggressive of us to position ourselves against the industry. > The only thing we give up is a little leverage in the discussions where the threat of a clean-room implementation is of some value.
- csense 14y ago
  The code's status as "an innocent and inconsequential instance of copying in the context of a massive number of lines of code," and its removal after its history came to light, were noted by the judge in the ruling I cited. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. The fact that it's in the ruling is important: Since Alsup articulated these circumstances as judicial findings in the official case record, they will definitely receive strong consideration in an appeal. (At least in the US, appeals courts can only consider findings of fact that have been found by a judge or jury in a lower court.)
jmcqk6 14y ago
>As much as Microsoft would like to kill Wine and ReactOS I agree with what you say about copyright, but this doesn't really make much sense to me. Why would Microsoft even care about ReactOS? It's been in development for over a decade and hasn't released a single stable version that's even compatible with Win 2000, let alone Win 8. Wine might be a little more tricky, but even looking at their compatibility page it lists two applications that aren't games (photoshop CS3 and .net framework 3.5) that appear on their "Silver" list of compatible applications (i.e. "Applications with minor issues that do not affect typical usage"). In both cases, the version that is listed is several years out of date from the current version. While I applaud the efforts by both of these teams to create the software that they've created, looking at it objectively, I don't see either one of them as threats to microsoft in any sense of the word. Both projects have had over a decade to prove otherwise, and both have failed to do so. They are still cool and useful projects, but not as something I think microsoft would wish were dead.
- shmerl 14y ago
  I'd argue that gaming is the key benefit of Wine, since for quite a number of users, games are the only reason they keep Windows around. Wine often helps them to drop Windows for good.

by csense 14y ago

barredo 14y ago

(preface: You're not wrong. I'm just adding more links, some data, and quotes to the conversation) > "If I did, it was a mistake," Bloch said, "and I'm sorry I did it." > The nine lines of rangeCheck code were removed from Android in version 4.0 of the operating system. http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/19/2961128/google-chief-java-architect-likely-i-copied-sun-code-in-android http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/19/2961128/google-chief-java-... -- I know it's not good when linking to FOSS, but could not find another source: http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/andy-rubin-knew-that-clean-room.html http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/andy-rubin-knew-that-clea... > Andy Rubin wrote: > My reasoning is that either a) we'll partner with Sun as contemplated in our recent discussions or b) we'll take a license. I think a clean-room implementation is unlikely because of the team[']s prior knowledge, and it would be uncharacteristically aggressive of us to position ourselves against the industry. > The only thing we give up is a little leverage in the discussions where the threat of a clean-room implementation is of some value.

csense 14y ago
The code's status as "an innocent and inconsequential instance of copying in the context of a massive number of lines of code," and its removal after its history came to light, were noted by the judge in the ruling I cited. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. The fact that it's in the ruling is important: Since Alsup articulated these circumstances as judicial findings in the official case record, they will definitely receive strong consideration in an appeal. (At least in the US, appeals courts can only consider findings of fact that have been found by a judge or jury in a lower court.)

jmcqk6 14y ago

>As much as Microsoft would like to kill Wine and ReactOS I agree with what you say about copyright, but this doesn't really make much sense to me. Why would Microsoft even care about ReactOS? It's been in development for over a decade and hasn't released a single stable version that's even compatible with Win 2000, let alone Win 8. Wine might be a little more tricky, but even looking at their compatibility page it lists two applications that aren't games (photoshop CS3 and .net framework 3.5) that appear on their "Silver" list of compatible applications (i.e. "Applications with minor issues that do not affect typical usage"). In both cases, the version that is listed is several years out of date from the current version. While I applaud the efforts by both of these teams to create the software that they've created, looking at it objectively, I don't see either one of them as threats to microsoft in any sense of the word. Both projects have had over a decade to prove otherwise, and both have failed to do so. They are still cool and useful projects, but not as something I think microsoft would wish were dead.

shmerl 14y ago
I'd argue that gaming is the key benefit of Wine, since for quite a number of users, games are the only reason they keep Windows around. Wine often helps them to drop Windows for good.