3 ms·

(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

by 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.)