| |||||||||||||
New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)Posted Jan 24, 2011 18:36 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)In reply to: New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica) by designerfx Parent article: New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica)
Let me focus on just one of the things you said: inducing infringement.
Taking code that's under a proprietary license or under the GPL and relicensing it illegally under Apache and publishing the relicensed version for the world to download and use could certainly result in situations (if people download the code and use it in reliance upon the false headers) that would raise liability issues.
(Log in to post comments)
New alleged evidence of Android infringement isn't a smoking gun (ars technica) Posted Jan 24, 2011 21:34 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
I thought it was now ACCEPTED FACT that Google DIDN'T do that!
Some anonymous coward put it onto Google's servers. It was AC that did what you're claiming.
There's a damn good chance that NOBODY at Google was even aware the stuff was there until you pointed it out to them ... (so they should be thanking you for bringing it to their notice!-)
Cheers,
|
|||||||||||||