

An update on JavaOne - mattyb
http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2010/08/update-on-javaone.html

======
pvg
FTA: _Oracle’s recent lawsuit against Google and open source_

I wish the Google people would stop saying that. Oracle didn't sue open
source. That doesn't even make sense, you can't sue open source any more than
you can sue Santa. Beside the fact that the open-sourced Java implementations
are explicitly unaffected by this lawsuit.

~~~
davidw
Android uses a lot of Apache Harmony.

~~~
pvg
The class library, not the VM. And, as importantly, Oracle hasn't sued the
Apache Foundation.

~~~
davidw
Why would they? There's no money there. Just wait until someone else goes and
uses it for something and makes some money. _Then_ sue the people with the
money.

~~~
pvg
We're really drifting far off-topic here. My point is the Oracle lawsuit has
nothing to do with Harmony (the library, which implements no part of the VM)
or ASF, it is not a suit against 'open source'. I imagine that we're all in
violent agreement here that what Oracle is doing is icky and lame. But it's
also mildly distasteful, FUD-ish and insulting to intelligence for Google to
be running around saying 'Oracle is suing open source'. I think bringing up
Harmony (or OpenJDK, or Clojure, or a bit of Java you wrote in college, etc)
is either being a worrywart or taking Google's verbiage at face value.

~~~
davidw
Yeah "open source" is not correct, but it's certainly accurate to say that
Oracle is suing Google regarding open source code they produce.

Also, I wouldn't be too sanguine: what do you think Oracle would have done had
Google used the Harmony VM to produce a system like Android?

~~~
pvg
_what do you think Oracle would have done had Google used the Harmony VM to
produce a system like Android?_

I think probably the exact same thing, if the resulting VM was not a spec-
compliant VM or otherwise did not fall under the various IP exemptions. Dalvik
itself is a much bigger opening for someone to use software patents in a
predatory way - if what Gosling's been saying lately is true, Oracle had that
as a goal all along. But much of that has to do with the unique peculiarities
of Dalvik - a VM that runs something that's like, but isn't quite Java-as-
specified.

------
wicknicks
This is really not nice for Open Source. I can understand that Oracle wants to
make money, but they are really creating big barriers for corporations using
Java. The lawsuit is marking the start of Java's decline. Its a matter of time
before something replaces it.

~~~
KeithMajhor
Is Microsoft's runtime any more open? I've been more and more impressed with
Mono lately. Does it potentially face the same issues Java is facing now?

~~~
sprout
Actually, it faces even bigger issues, since you essentially have to be using
a version of Mono that is paid for. Java at least has a solid grant of patents
so long as you're using the GPL version.

Microsoft has intentionally worded their licenses to allow them to sue anyone
who isn't paying for their software in the future.

In a certain sense, this is the intent of the GPL rearing its ugly head. When
Oracle says Android violates their copyright, it seems like what they mean is
they've taken GPL code (the Java standard) and re-implemented it under a
different license. Though I'm in no way deep in enough to say that
authoritatively, and like the entire suit the rationale seems questionable to
say the least.

A potential Microsoft suit looks to be allowed by the Mono licensing.

~~~
viraptor
I'm not sure what you're referring to in a couple of places:

> since you essentially have to be using a version of Mono that is paid for

What do you mean? The MS-Novel patent deal was done long time ago. Now, there
is a better document in place:
<http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx> \- both C# and CLI are
covered and no implementation is pointed at. It stops them from suing for
"making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any
implementation" - as long as it's compliant with specs. Stress is on "any
implementation" here. That document doesn't mention any specific party and
doesn't limit the promise to any specific group as far as I can see.

> Microsoft has intentionally worded their licenses to allow them to sue
> anyone who isn't paying for their software in the future.

[citation needed]

~~~
sprout
Okay, I think I was confusing Mono with Moonlight, which as I see it is not
covered by that document. (And Silverlight is an increasingly important piece
of the .NET pie.)

Also, given Microsoft's business model and track record, it seems unlikely
that .NET is going to hit a steady stable state any time soon, unlike Java
which may be stuck at 6 indefinitely. The consequence of this is that
Microsoft can break everything, including their promises, anytime they want by
bumping the version number and removing the license for the new version. Would
it be a good business decision for them? Probably not. But I think this move
from Oracle shows that it is a very real possibility, if Microsoft decides
they should be taking cues from Oracle (which given Oracle's track record
makes a lot of sense, even if this move seems bonkers.)

------
protomyth
"Oracle’s recent lawsuit against Google and open source"

The lawsuit is against Google, not the OpenJDK. It seems disingenuous to keep
linking Google's situation with Open Source in general. Google isn't using the
OpenJDK. Google didn't want to spend the money and now has to deal with that
decision. A simple "We are not going to a conference sponsored by someone
suing us" would be good enough. Adobe and Google must have sent their people
to the same blog training program.

~~~
patrickaljord
> Google didn't want to spend the money and now has to deal with that
> decision.

It's not that they didn't want to pay, they wanted to make a fully open source
mobile OS. Going with OpenJDK would have forced them to make Android GPL which
would have been a no-no for carriers and going with Sun's licensed JVM would
have made Android not open source. So Google had to go with their own VM if
they wanted to have an open source mobile OS based on Java.

~~~
jrockway
Why would the GPL have been a "no-no" for carriers? Linux is GPL'd, and I'm
pretty sure Android uses that.

I can't think of a single Android device that doesn't let you install your own
build on it. (After some coercing, of course.)

~~~
patrickaljord
The kernel is GPL, but that doesn't stop you to write non-GPL apps on top of
it. However, using a GPL OpenJDK would have made every single app on Android
GPL.

~~~
aphexairlines
The kernel license has an explicit exception to the GPL for user programs:
<http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/COPYING>

~~~
patrickaljord
No, that's related to writing kernel modules. I'm talking about writing
propriety apps on a gnu/linux distribution, android in that case. This is
totally legal and doesn't depend at all on the kernel license exception. Think
skype on ubuntu. However, if the toolkit/sdk you're using on a gnu/linux
distribution is GPL, then all your apps will have to be GPL, unless you use a
non-gpl sdk or write your own non-gpl sdk as Google did.

------
peterlind
How hard would it be for Google to fork OpenJDK and release Guava 7 instead
(with all the niceties we're waiting for). If they made it open they probably
could get a lot of people to switch over.

~~~
danieldk
That would not really solve the problem. The Sun/Oracle patent grant only
extends to JDKs that conform to the specification, and pass all tests in the
test suite. That is, if you can license the test suite (see Apache Harmony).

[http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_and_patents#The_Java_Language_...](http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_and_patents#The_Java_Language_Specification_grant)

~~~
wmf
Another section of _that same page_ gives a different interpretation:
[http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_and_patents#OpenJDK:_the_GPLv2...](http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_and_patents#OpenJDK:_the_GPLv2_Java_from_Oracle)
OpenJDK apparently comes with its own patent grant which should cover _any_
derivatives, compatible or not.

~~~
peterlind
Yeah, these lines look great: "OpenJDK is has been distributed by Oracle under
GPLv2.[1] GPLv2 includes two implicit patent licences, so users of OpenJDK
should be safe, and modified versions of OpenJDK should also be safe (even if
they're heavily modified).

The protections in the GPL are unconditional. The software doesn't have to
comply with any specifications in order to benefit from these protections."

~~~
lftl
That's a very interesting consequence of the GPL I hadn't considered before. I
wonder where the law would draw the line in regards to modification. I mean,
if I download OpenJDK, and delete 99% of it and then code something else, is
it still the same software? Does my new program have the same patent
protection?

~~~
zmmmmm
> Does my new program have the same patent protection?

I would say it does to the same extent all the other GPL constraints stay in
force. I think that the GPL stays in force down to the smallest unit of
copyrightable code - it has to, or you would be legally unable to distribute
1% of the project on its own which makes no sense.

However this would be a big leap: Android is Apache Licensed. Bringing GPL
code in to Dalvik will make it (and any other components that are linked to
it) GPL licensed, which in turn force all the carriers and handset makers to
distribute their own customizations. I'm not sure how far that would extend
through Android's code base but it could remove one of the most attractive
features of Android for vendors - the fact they can put their own proprietary
technology into it and customize it how they like.

------
adharmad
Why is Oracle suing Google not ok but Sun suing Microsoft for essentially the
same reason ok?

~~~
dminor
Sun/Microsoft was a breach of contract lawsuit.

Oracle/Google is a patent lawsuit.

~~~
wmf
Fundamentally, both lawsuits appear to be about embrace-and-extend.

