Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.
Filing
1768
REQUEST RE CUSTOM DETAILS Replies due by 5/3/2016. Responses due by 5/2/2016.. Signed by Judge Alsup on 5/1/16. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
ORACLE AMERICA, INC.,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
No. C 10-03561 WHA
Plaintiff,
v.
GOOGLE INC.,
14
REQUEST RE
“CUSTOM” DETAILS
Defendant.
/
15
16
With respect to “custom,” the Court understood open-source to still have licensing
17
restrictions, which included, if you downloaded the open-source code, (i) donating back to the
18
open-source public all improvements by the downloader, and (ii) not selling for profit your own
19
version of what you downloaded. Were these conditions part of the open-source custom or not?
20
If so, how does Google contend it complied with these conditions? Oracle will please address
21
these concerns in its “custom” response due MONDAY, and Google must answer specifically on
22
the above (and any other licensing bars raised by Oracle to any such custom) by TUESDAY AT
23
NOON.
24
25
26
27
28
Dated: May 1, 2016.
WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?