- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
The Oracle-Google Mess: A Question - Are Any of the Patents Tied to a Specific Machine?
|
|
|
Comments (8)
This is an entire buffet of meaty information. PJ rocks!
From the first paragraph in the link provided in PJ's post:
"Since this article was first published, Sun has relicensed most of its Java platform reference implementation under the GNU General Public License, and there is now a free development environment for Java. Thus, the Java language as such is no longer a trap."
Not sure what your point is, Darren114, though this particular talking point is being recycled all over the place by the (sadly incompetent) PJ/RMS debunkers as an example of RMS being wrong. It's desperate and dumb, because he's right. Here is some relevant quoting from The Java Trap:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
The 'The Java Trap' was about licensing rather than patent dangers, though even back then RMS recognized that the Java ecosystem is complex, and has perils lurking everywhere for the unwary. There is the Java language, Java virtual machines, compilers, and other elements, all of which have different licenses and different patent encumberments.
A number of people have written about how this complexity pertains to the Oracle suit, such as PJ, Andy Updegrove, and several more. SJVN summed it up nicely:
Google was aware of this, and there was another gotcha-- the mobile edition was not included either. So they had been in negotiations with Oracle for some time. Apparently these went nowhere, so they invented Dalvik to get around having to pay license fees:
There is no "aha gotcha!" here.
Quoting: "Since this article was first published, Sun has relicensed most of its Java platform reference implementation under the GNU General Public License, and there is now a free development environment for Java. Thus, the Java language as such is no longer a trap.
"You must be careful, however, because not every Java platform is free."
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
The 'The Java Trap' was about licensing rather than patent dangers, though even back then RMS recognized that the Java ecosystem is complex, and has perils lurking everywhere for the unwary. There is the Java language, Java virtual machines, compilers, and other elements, all of which have different licenses and different patent encumberments.
A number of people have written about how this complexity pertains to the Oracle suit, such as PJ, Andy Updegrove, and several more. SJVN summed it up nicely:
Quoting: "When I broke the story in November 2006 that Sun was open-sourcing Java under the GPLv2, I didn't notice that the Java specification patent grant that went along with it, and which came out in December 2006, is only valid if developers use fully compliant Java implementation. Oops."http://blogs.computerworld.com/16736/oracle_vs_google_over_j...
Google was aware of this, and there was another gotcha-- the mobile edition was not included either. So they had been in negotiations with Oracle for some time. Apparently these went nowhere, so they invented Dalvik to get around having to pay license fees:
Quoting: "Sun only included the Classpath Exception for the core Java platform – it’s not included in the mobile edition. So Sun brilliantly appeared to be playing open source benefactor while at the same time keeping control of the mobile side of the equation (i.e. the rights to the gold mine).[url=http://siliconangle.com/blog/2010/08/13/how-google-tried-to-end-run-java-and-why-oracle’s-lawsuit-has-merit/]http://siliconangle.com/blog/2010/08/13/how-google-tried-to-...[/url]
"Google, realizing what Sun had done, developed an end run strategy to Sun’s move, which resulted in Dalvik."
There is no "aha gotcha!" here.
My point was not that RMS is wrong (this time) but that Java should not necessarily be a cause for concern. There's a tendency to go to extremes in this sort of situation (not that you have here.) "Oracle is suing Google over Java in Android. Android is based on Linux. Oracle is going to sue the world over Linux!!!!"
Watch your licensing. Watch where you get your libraries.
Then for the most part, there should be no issue with using Java for FOSS development.
Watch your licensing. Watch where you get your libraries.
Then for the most part, there should be no issue with using Java for FOSS development.
Well that's sensible. A nice change from all the crazy talk flying around, and there is plenty of it.
Darren: There's much stronger evidence they're not going "after Linux":
They became a OIN licensee some time ago.
'Patents owned by Open Invention Network are available royalty-free to any company, institution or individual that agrees not to assert its patents against the Linux System.'
http://xml.coverpages.org/Oracle-OIN.html
They became a OIN licensee some time ago.
'Patents owned by Open Invention Network are available royalty-free to any company, institution or individual that agrees not to assert its patents against the Linux System.'
http://xml.coverpages.org/Oracle-OIN.html
@Hans -
I know it - I was using that as an example of the sort of hyperbole I'm afraid we'll be seeing (and are starting to see with disparaging references like 'SCOracle') if people go off half-cocked.
Well, SCOracle is pretty hard to resist :)
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post