FlorianMueller

glibc contains Linux kernel header code that the maintainers of the Linux kernel add to it. They can do so because contributors to Linux know that this happens and accept it. But third parties can't just take such code and put it under other licenses.

@Sandman, the "oh my, oh my, oh my" part is actually justified as a reaction to some of what you say.

Of course you can try to charge for GPL'd software. But since the GPL requires you to make it available free of charge, there would be arbitrage: people would find where to get it for free, and why would they pay then?

Pretty much. They also threw out a few other elements, but I looked at some of the original header files and the Android equivalents and it was hard to find any difference other than the removal of comments.

Edward Naughton, a prominent IP litigator, said in his Huffington Post article on this that he's skeptical of Google's approach because he believes the header material they copied is likely copyrightable. If it's copyrightable, it can't just be relicensed by third parties.

During all those years that Linux has been around, no one other than Google has tried to take this kind of material from the original kernel headers and publish it under any license other than the GPL. And no one has tried to do an alternative glibc. I guess what someone would do is take glibc and fork it on LGPL terms.

glibc is LGPL'd because the kernel maintainers create it under the LGPL and all Linux kernel contributors know and accept that. But third parties can't just take code and relicense it. Otherwise why not take all of Linux and relicense it under BSD or Apache? ;-)

The reason is that Angry Birds is written in C and certainly accesses the Linux kernel, almost certainly using the Bionic library. If that one is GPL'd, Angry Birds has to be GPL'd. GPL copyleft affects derivative works, and compiling a library into your program is a clear case of a derivative work.

Linus Torvalds says that "normal system calls" are allowed, but once you use the original kernel headers, you're subject to the GPL: http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/5/13 The way to avoid this is to use glibc.

Thanks for clarifying that. Yes, let freedom and pluralism ring.

I agree that linking to GPL libraries has GPL implications. Concerning a relicensing of Bionic under the LGPL, it's important to consider that only the original copyright holders can simply relicense (like MySQL, which granted non-GPL licenses to its database). The safe way would be for Google to use glibc, like MeeGo and webOS do.

That Groklaw article failed to explain that the code in question is indeed distributed online by major Android device makers such as Motorola, Samsung and LG: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/android-device-maker...

Even a melody is protected by copyright law if it's longer than X tones (X depends on the jurisdiction).

That's a run-of-the-mill attempt to deny copying. However, if you look at the synopsis documents I produced (with a decompiled version of Oracle's code on the left side and the code found in the Android codebase on the right side), you can see that Google grossly overstates the importance of those differences.

Here's one example (and the others are consistent with this): http://www.docstoc.com/docs/69702407/1-AclEntryImpl-synopsis

Oracle presented 12 files to the court. I would consider a source code file to a song. Just look at the files I presented here: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2011/01/new-evidence-support...

I have updated the blog post on reexamination and dismissal of copyright claims with an explanation concerning the scope of what was copied. So thanks for raising the issue, even though you quoted selectively because you left out the reference to 12 source files.

Yes, my article on this states: "t's important to note the difference between MPEG, the standardization body, and MPEG LA, the licensing agency. MPEG defines standards, and those can be royalty-free or royalty-bearing, depending on what the owners of the essential patents agree upon in each case. MPEG LA manages patent pools related to royalty-bearing standards, serving right holders and licensees as a one-stop solution by way of aggregation."

I take a more differentiated look at those patent disputes than what you claim. I encourage you to take a look at the documents contained in this folder: http://www.scribd.com/my_document_collections/2770688

What you call a "linkbaity headline" was just a quote from Oracle's filing.

I never claimed nor implied to speak for the wider open source community. In this blog post (published in December) I even made it absolutely clear that I don't: http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/12/foss-focus-philosoph...

I see we agree on large parts of this.

Concerning cost/benefit ratio, Oracle wouldn't have to sue them all. It could contact many of them and some would pay. Some would refuse to pay, and then Oracle would single out one or two or more of them and sue. Just the fact that they make good on their threat to sue would get some others to pay. And if they prevail over only one, they will get everyone to pay.

I made it clear that it's both a burden-of-proof question and a liability question. If Google refuses to accept liability for the downstream, then Oracle may feel forced to go after the downstream directly. Any better idea for how to interpret Oracle's claim that Google 'wants to throw its licensees and users under the bus'?

Neither Oracle nor I claim that the Android ecosystem is Oracle's property. It's just that if one or more of Oracle's patents read on Dalvik, every Android phone and every Android app can potentially be viewed as infringing material.

As far as I'm concerned, those seven patents are way too broad and fundamental. But they exist.

You are right about the Groklaw/IBM "prime directive". Groklaw actually linked to my NoSoftwarePatents campaign several times in 2004, and the relationship turned sour in January 2005 when I criticized IBM's patent pledge. Groklaw was then against me in connection with the Oracle/Sun debate, and completely flew off the handle in the IBM/TurboHercules context.

I have repeatedly (and even somewhat recently) tried to engage with "PJ" in a constructive dialog. Unfortunately, I didn't walk through an open door there.

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-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).