On 10/28/2010 04:46 PM, Fabrizio Giudici wrote:
On 10/28/2010 04:42 PM, Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
But, if true (and while the difference does increase if you read
further in, its undeniable that these are eerily similar to each
other), this would indicate an extremely interesting legal test of
open source principles.
Precisely what's I'm immensely curious about now!
In particular, these are the questions I've in mind now (inspired by,
but not necessarily related to the lawsuit):
1. Let's suppose they discover only one class (let's say a couple of
dozens LoC) that has been directly copied. Would this be enough to
sustain all the lawsuit? Of course, Oracle is talking about "one third"
including source code and javadocs.
2. Let's focus e.g. on a very simple class implementing a common pattern
(e.g. a Node in a composite, which seems similar to the code in Exhibit
J). To me it's clear that there's a very immediate and obvious
implementation... so it's not unlikely that two different guys can
produce independent implementations that, once normalized, look very
similar.
3. OTOH, what smells a lot of copying in Exhibit J is the very same
order of declarations of fields... But, hell, if I ever copied some code
in that case one of the first things I'd do would be to scramble the
order of fields!
--
f.g.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java
Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
