

Sun CEO explicitly endorsed Java's use in Android - mrsebastian
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/sun-ceo-explicitly-endorsed-javas-use-in-android-what-do-you-say-now-oracle/9285

======
mseebach
I think it's a weak argument, actually I think it's a slippery slope if CEOs
can't say anything without that implicitly granting all sorts of permissions.
It's a valid defense that Schwartz obviously meant to welcome Android to being
based on Java, assuming they didn't infringe on Suns intellectual property.

"I'm happy people is so excited about watching our movies" is not an
endorsement of pirating said movie.

~~~
ansy
I am not a lawyer, but I completely disagree when estoppel is taken into
consideration[1]. Sun publicly endorsed Google's implementation of Java and
there is probably plenty of evidence it endorsed it privately as well.

There is a reason a CEO doesn't just spout off whatever he wants without
consulting a lawyer. Especially on company letterhead which is what the Sun
Blog amounts to these days. If it was a mistake it should have been retracted.
But it wasn't, so maybe it wasn't a mistake in the eyes of the law.

And yes, if a film's rights holder gives explicit or even implicit endorsement
of people watching the film through piracy, as did Michael Moore [2], that
does protect you from him suing you for pirating it. You don't need a license
contract to tell you it's OK.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel>

[2] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7uvRCyVfa0>

~~~
econgeeker
He endorsed google using Sun Java, not googles implementation of "Java".

This whole line of argument is FUD From pro-google people who are trying to
pretend like its hypocritical to want to defend Java.

Android was using Sun Java before the licensing dispute caused them to go
their own way.

~~~
nl
_He endorsed google using Sun Java... Android was using Sun Java before the
licensing dispute caused them to go their own way._

This simply isn't true.

Google/Android _never_ used Sun Java, the libraries or the Sun JVM.

Android always had their custom Dalvik VM, and it used the (clean room) Apache
Harmony Java-compatible libraries.

~~~
hn_decay
I originally clicked reply to a similar message to say much the same thing as
what you've said, however the original announcement that he was replying to
gave no specifics, save one-

<http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/press_110507.html>

"Thanks to the availability of our Jbed™ Java™ VM on the Android platform, we
offer immediate compatibility to the standard Java ME world to enable Java ME-
based mobile services with the Android platform."

So it's a bit fuzzy. I'm on the fence as to what this means, but given that
Android was actually based on Java prior to Google's purchase, and this was
not long after that transaction, I have to think Schwartz really was referring
to a J2ME implementation. Indeed he specifically talks about support for
netbeans and the like, which of course is entirely untrue for today's Android
development.

So I don't think this is the smoking gun that many think it is. Scwartz
perhaps jumped the gun before formalling licensing it, but it isn't some grand
endorsement of an Apachy Harmony derivative.

[http://blog.yafla.com/Did_Jonathan_Schwartz_Endorse_Androids...](http://blog.yafla.com/Did_Jonathan_Schwartz_Endorse_Androids_Cleanroom_Java_Implementation/)

------
eli
_"Now, I am not a lawyer, but [...]. Hopefully, the U.S. District Court will
see it the same way and throw this case into the trash heap where it
belongs."_

Maybe I'm just a journalism snob, but that's some pretty poor reporting.

------
Symmetry
Reading the Wikipedia page on estoppel[1], it seems that Google's case is
strengthened much more by Sun's long delay in pursuing legal action against
Google than by a casual statement by the CEO. Of course, IANAL.

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel>

------
m_eiman
Except he congratulates them on using Java, not dalvik. The assumption being
that Google would not circumvent the conditions for using Sun's Java tech/IP,
naturally.

~~~
nextparadigms
Dalvik was already launched by the time of the post. So clearly he implied the
Java inside Dalvik.

~~~
esrauch
Amazon uses a custom JVM on Kindle devices and they paid a per-device
licensing fee to Sun (and I assume they still do to Oracle). If I recall, this
is actually how Sun used to handle their licensing; if you had a completely
standards compliant implementation then you didn't have to pay licensing fees,
but if you have any sort of custom VM that ran java (even if it was a strict
subset or superset) you had to get them to agree to licensing terms.

Maybe I'm off base, but it seems like just because he made a statement that he
was happy to see that they were going to use a java-based VM doesn't mean he
didn't assume that they were going to pay licensing fees for it.

------
happyfeet
Nov 2007!

[http://androidcommunity.com/forums/f8/sun-welcomes-
android-w...](http://androidcommunity.com/forums/f8/sun-welcomes-android-with-
open-arms-48/)

------
nl
IMHO, this is a much stronger case:

 _Nothing in the licensing terms will prevent open source projects from
creating and distributing their own compatible open source implementations of
Java SE 6, using standard open source licenses_

From JSR-270

[http://www.jroller.com/scolebourne/entry/jcp_bonn_meeting_oc...](http://www.jroller.com/scolebourne/entry/jcp_bonn_meeting_october_2010)

~~~
wmf
That doesn't help because Dalvik is not compatible (and to make it compatible
would probably require making it too slow and bloated to run on phones).

~~~
nl
It depends what "compatible" means, though, doesn't it?

If you include the Java bytecode-to-Dalvik compiler as part of the "system" it
could be considered compatible.

~~~
esrauch
I'm not sure that the Java bytecodoe-to-Dalvik compiler actually completely
Java SE 6 compatible (eg that it is a superset), but I think that is
irrelevant since their licensing actually prohibits supersets. This is why Sun
was able to force Microsoft to discontinue their JVM; it had nonstandard
features in it, and therefore their licensing wouldn't be valid.

~~~
nl
_but I think that is irrelevant since their licensing actually prohibits
supersets_

Android/Dalvik isn't a licensed Java implementation so the irrelevance is
irrelevant ;)

The original statement referred to the license to use a Java compatible API,
not to _be_ a Java licencee.

------
nl
This article seems to try and make a link between the fact that the blog post
is no longer available, and the Google/Oracle court case.

That isn't how it happened - Oracle took down the old Sun blogging site (along
with _all_ the blogs) at the same time. It was a typical Oracle move - wanting
to control the dialog about their platform - but I don't think it was
specifically about this case.

------
erikb
I think we people, who are using and depending on Java and Android shouldn't
take these lawsuits too personal. It is just one point where the Oracle army
(made of lawyers) found a possible hole in the defense of Google and tries to
attack it. Who wins this battle doesn't actually concerns our lives at all
(excluding the CEOs of Oracle and Google, of course).

~~~
CaptainZapp
This is extremely optimistic and advocates a total head-in-the-sand view
(except ostriches don't really do that).

Companies seem to care very little if their little patent wars leave a little
or a lot collateral damage.

GIF, anybody?

~~~
erikb
> Companies seem to care very little if their little patent wars leave a
> little or a lot collateral damage.

Totally true and never argued a different point of view. Just consider how
killing Android would be a major blow to Google and how likely it is to land
such a blow on a company like Google in a situation like this. What I meant
was, that considering the context and the chances, it is much more likely that
whoever wins, wins some millions, maybe even billions. That will hurt the
loser, maybe hurt the companies overall value, but it will not kill Java or
Android.

Btw. I think it is really interesting, how both sides in a discussion can
think the other one is kind of naive and blind, because they don't really get
the point of the other one. Your ostriches-argument is exactly what I thought
when I wrote my comment (just exchange optimistic with pesimistic)!

------
pr0filer_
It's a trap!

------
econgeeker
Yes, SUN JAVA, not Google Dalvik. Android was using Sun licensed java in the
early days, switched when google didn't like the licensing terms.

~~~
dminor
No. Android was released with Dalvik in November 2007, when Schwartz's blog
post was written.

<http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/110/>

~~~
YooLi
Blog post: Nov. 5 Google released dalvik: Nov. 12

So technically Schwartz could have been blindsided by Dalvik.

~~~
ig1
I'm pretty sure Schwartz was aware of the fact that Google hadn't licence
JavaME from them...

~~~
YooLi
How can you be sure? There are other people pretty sure of the opposite

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2809775>

~~~
ig1
Because it would have been a huge deal, the kind of thing they'd make press
releases out of. To suggest that the board members of Sun would have been
unaware of such a major deal is farcical.

