Why would it be fair use? Is it transformative? Is it for academic use? Is it even interoperable?
48 posts • joined 4 Jun 2009
And yet it's ok to copy declaring code because...? Oh, right, it's transformative, or something. Or maybe because the JLS is free? Or Java is free? Some consistency would be appreciated.
A derivative song gets an editorial lambasting the notion, but derivative software, not so much, because, err, why? Oh, right, Ellison.
Exactly hits the nail on the head. But let's examine your assertion: that Java isn't worth billions. Ok, what would've been the cost for Google to have invented a language of their own in the required timeframe? Secondly, what would've been the opportunity cost in *losing* "compatability" with Java?
Seriously, put a dollar figure on that, WAG, and let's go from there.
The appeals court addressed the second point quite thoroughly, that Google made a conscience choice to bypass the GPL *for money*. Which is fine, then pay Sun/Oracle. They chose not to do that, either. Now, they've got to bit the bullet.
The ONLY positive news in this whole nonsense is that GOOGLE HAS FORKED OPENJDK like they should've from the get go. (Which is also what the appeals court pointed out.)
Re: FOU: Field of Use Restrictions was the original sticking point.
It's contentious to claim that Harmony was legitimately reverse engineered, but, even granting that, what would be the point?
Sun, very pointedly, chose the GPL, and not some other license when they released their code.
This, also, was the same license, not coincidentally, which MySQL chose for dual-licensing. There are some very good reasons to choose the GPL over the ASL.
This lawsuit shows exactly that Google's intentions were never honorable. They never, in court, claimed to have reverse engineered Java. Outside of court, they seem to make that a PR move, but not in court. The appeals court referenced the amicus brief from a retired Registrar of Copyrights, Ralph Oman, IIRC, who pointed out that all Google had to do was to reverse engineer the 37 packages in question.
ALL GOOGLE HAD TO DO WAS TO ACTUALLY REVERSE ENGINEER. That's exactly what the appeals court quoted, and it just gets overlooked. Even granting that Harmony was reverse engineered, which is a contentious claim, it wasn't complete.
And, then, back to GPL versus ASL, why use Harmony anyhow? Why not use the GPL code from the get go?
All of these moves demonstrate, quite clearly, the bad intentions of Google.
Re: Apache Harmony
If Dalvik were a clean room implementation, then there wouldn't be a problem.
Did you read the appeals court decision? They pointed out this as an option, and note that Google didn't reverse engineer.
If you want to make the case that Dalvik is a clean room implementation, go ahead. Wikipedia says:
" Google says that Dalvik is a clean-room implementation rather than a development on top of a standard Java runtime, which would mean it does not inherit copyright-based license restrictions from either the standard-edition or open-source-edition Java runtimes. Oracle and some reviewers dispute this."
The appeals court said "nope".
Re: Apache Harmony
It has everything to do with copyright. Harmony is immune from legal threat exactly because it's reverse engineered.
Certainly, Dalvik uses Harmony, and that's great.
However, Dalvik also used just regular ol' copying, and that ain't so legal. The appeals court pointed out that the GPL was available as an option. It's fine that Google didn't choose the GPL, but, if they wanted to to use the ASL, they should've actually reverse engineered everything.
Google claims that some (Harmony) was reverse engineered.
There's no claim that everything was reverse engineered. Harmony, is therefore, a total red herring in this argument. It's the parts not in Harmony which are at issue.
Re: perhaps I'm an idiot...
The appeals court specifically quoted ?ralph Orman?, the former US register/registrar of copyrights, who filed an amicus brief. In that brief, he stated that all Google had to do was to follow the GPL. The appeals court noted this.
By following the GPL, there can be complaints regarding copyright. Because, by definition, that's using, or employing, the copyright license through the GPL.
Re: Google is a special case
Re: just because it has Google's backing would be a mistake
It really depends on how Google goes about it. If everything is well documented and licensed for open source, great. A plugin for the main browsers across different operating systems? Sounds good. At worst, it's an annoyance to install another plugin to make something work.
Why not just license under the GPL?
"Sun Develops A Licensing Regime To Foster A Community And Ensure Compatibility
Although Oracle owns the copyright on Java SE and the corresponding packages, Oracle encourages their use by others—both a vast community of programmers writing clever apps and businesses developing proprietary and competing products. To accommodate all comers, Sun/Oracle offers three different licenses:
(1) The General Public License (“GPL”) is free of charge..."
Case: 13-1021 Document: 43 Filed: 02/11/2013
Source is GPL, or ASF?
@Do Not Fold Spindle Mutilate err, you've got the whole thing backwards. Is the original code GPL of ASL? If it's GPL, then why is the Google code under the ASL?
It's ironic that you use the "fail" icon, because you've failed completely in understanding the problem: you can't just take GPL code and slap an ASL on it. If thats what Google did, if, as your statements indicate happened, then the code is really GPL. When you remove the GPL boilerplate bad things happen.
Once you break the conditions of the GPL, you lose patent protection as well. That's, basically, Oracle's argument. You may think you're supporting Google, but your argument *actually* supports Oracle's contention: that the code was copyrighted. All Google had to do was to keep the GPL boilerplate and there wouldn't be a problem.
Which raises the bigger question, of why Google didn't just fork OpenJDK -- much easier. However, any such fork would, naturally, be under the GPL and *not* the ASL.
I think this is just a case of a business (Google) deciding that the ASL is preferable, and then a mix-up. However, the facts, as you present them, make that a really expensive case of copyright infringement (and patent, as well, because when you drop the GPL you lose patent protection).
Penguin for the GPL :)
security? can you say "package manager"?
@Bill Colemen: while, then why don't Apple just use a package manager which updates apps? I mean, that's the logical conclusion to the whole "walled garden" they have. Simply apply the same logic from their portable devices (?iOS?) to regular mac's and be done with it.
By the by, .NET requires updates, just like Java. Should Apple come out with their own VM, to better achieve total lock-in, I'm sure it, too, will require updates.
"There they will experience bottlenecks in accessing their huge PowerPoints, 4GB emails and have a few system outages inconveniencing the CEO."
err, have you used Google Doc's? That 4GB e-mail isn't a problem since it's, well, in the cloud. Kinda the point.
In and of itself, that's enough that everyone in the world should switch over to some sorta cloud (intranet?) for company doc's! That being said, restricting the interface to what a browser can do is silly.
1.) no 4GB e-mails getting passed around
2.) no "oops, lost the file"/crash/whatever from users
3.) platform independent! (well, Firefox compatible, let's say)
4.) similar to #1, no virus attachments
Oracle broke the JCP's rules by refusing to grant Apache a license
"However, since the release of OpenJDK, a specific license allow to run the JCK in the OpenJDK context, that is for any GPL implementation deriving substantially from OpenJDK ." -wikipedia
I dunno, the assertion that Oracle broke rules seems a bit contentious. If they broke a rule, then why no lawsuit to that effect? Many companies, to take one, IBM, would like to see Java under the ASL.
Or, maybe there's suck a JCP rule (or was, I dunno). I, perhaps, naively, thought that Sun/Oracle could pretty much do as they please within the JCP and the TCK. If not...
Harmony isn't ©Java
If I understand, because it's not certified, Harmony can't claim to be ©Java. But, what stops it from claiming to be Harmony? Oracle bought the copyright to the name ©Java, and owns the TCK, so can do what they like with the name ©Java and the TCK(?). Where and how does Apache go about telling Oracle the terms and conditions for Oracle software? Strange concept.
OTOH, If there's something you don't like about ©Java, great, fork OpenJDK -- oops, you'll have to use that dreaded (L)GPL. This is really about Apache not wanting to use the LGPL, nothing more.
To reiterate, Java is already open source. What's the problem?
Which might be the point of this OS -- it has better security than Windows. On that point alone, think of the saved time, money and aggravation. On the flip side, think of all those who would be put out of work supporting the OS, which Google seems to have a strange take on. Under this concept, the unemployment in the US would worsen, and it's not like there are other jobs for those displaced, what with globalization.
In that sense, this *idea*, if perhaps not the implementation, is disruptive, which is good (overall). I see it as another step towards the commoditization of the OS. Nothing wrong with that.
why fork Java?
what is there to fork? OpenJDK is already under the GPL.
I mean, I guess you could fork it, but why? Which part of OpenJDK do you object to?
The point has been made before that all Google had to do was to fork OpenJDK and the resultant fork would've been fine for Android -- not sure why they didn't just do that. However, for Java SE, why fork at all?
If Android were derived from OpenJDK, it would also have to be GPL...
That's the argument, that it *was* derived from OpenJDK. If true, that would be bombshell. With copyright infringement, isn't it per instance of violation? Continuing the what-if, that would be a huge settlement.
OTOH, the class was written from scratch, and *not* copy/paste/whatever from the GPL code, then it's fine if they happen to do the same thing the same way (?). IANAL -- but, for the sake of argument, I'll act like one ;)
All Google has to show, so far as I'm aware, would be the svn/git/etc logs showing how this class evolved. Presumably it's not just this one class? Kinda absurd to violate the GPL over one class file.
In this scenario, Microsoft and Apple would be primary beneficiary, as Google's existence benefits Oracle. It's turning into a regular soap opera :)
Easier, cheaper way
To take this to its logical extreme, if the cars drive themselves, then performance from one car to another wouldn't matter, right? From a consumers standpoint, then performance becomes a non-issue. As would safety.
If that leads to the demise of the Hummer type car culture, then great, and it *would* actually result in lower emissions.
In a democracy it's kinda hard to get people to do what's collectively good if it goes against individual desires.
gold rush analogy fail
Hmm, yes, it's a gold rush, and, yes, historically, Levi et. al. made bucket loads of money. However, people also made money mining -- some of them got quite rich.
In any event, you're missing the markup. In your scenario, selling infrastructure, what's the markup? Conversely, what's the markup for offering the cloud? Seems to me that, for example, there's not much markup in selling hardware to Google.
If an item scans higher at checkout than the sticker price on the item itself or the price posted on the shelf, in Connecticut, you’re entitled to that item at no cost. You don’t pay the higher price OR the lower price. In fact, the store must give the item to you free, up to a value of $20.
At non-grocery type stores you can insist upon the marked price so long as its reasonable. Ie, you can't buy a car for $20, but I have purchased a mp3 players for a fraction of the cost as scanned in based upon mismarking ($60 versus $20, IIRC).
I cannot believe that within the EU, including GB, that the consumer protection would be less than above. I flat out reject your contention that a shop can just decline a transaction. What about a "no irish or dogs" type sign? Get real.
You lost all credibility with the claim that Netbeans is required to build JavaFX apps. I've never used FX and have no idea how the API works, but less than five seconds with Google contradicted your claim: there are eclipse plug-ins for JavaFX, of course.
Your other claims are just as suspect, which is unfortunate.