
Response from Oracle to Apache on JCP - jancona
http://blogs.oracle.com/henrik/2010/11/moving_java_forward_open_response_from_oracle_to_apache.html
======
rbanffy
_"Oracle provides TCK licenses under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory
terms consistent with its obligations under the JSPA"_

IIRC, the whole problem of the Apache folks is that this is simply not true.

~~~
foo13bar
So, what agreement did they actually offer?

~~~
pquerna
[http://www.jroller.com/scolebourne/entry/sun_apache_ip_in_pi...](http://www.jroller.com/scolebourne/entry/sun_apache_ip_in_pictures)

Is probably one of the best explanations of the situation.

FOU restrictions would stop any real open source implementation.

------
jameskilton
Does Oracle _still_ not realize that there's no-one in the entire FOSS
community that trusts them?

To Oracle: If you want to get our trust back, you need to do these two things:

1) Drop your stupid patent dick-waving against Google 2) Open source Java
proper

Then, and only then, will we talk.

~~~
BonoboBoner
As much as I would love to see that happen, it wont.

What is developer trust and why does Oracle care?

As long as CIOs trust Oracle to run their business on Oracle products, they
are fine.

~~~
hga
Hmmm, I have to wonder.

E.g. when will "Javaschools" (for which I'll include MIT since it's a Python
and Java school) switch to something else?

Not any time soon (new curriculum development is expensive and very
political), not even in the foreseeable future ... but when I started playing
this game (1977) lower tier schools were teaching FORTRAN and COBOL. That
situation did not last forever.

------
logic
I'm having a difficult time reading their response, as their raised middle
finger aimed in the ASF's general direction appears to be obscuring the view.

Disappointing.

------
boredguy8
I haven't seen such a shining example of, "This response has been vetted by
legal and PR" in quite a long time.

------
jaaron
I like Jim's response on Twitter:
<http://twitter.com/#!/jimjag/status/4284342641623040>

------
csulok
The way I put together this whole issue is this:

1\. ASF wants the java license to be a grant of patent license.

2\. ASF needs this for the Apache Harmony project.

3\. Google Android uses Apache Harmory.

4\. Oracle sues Google because of copyright infringement in the apache harmory
related codes.

5\. Oracle couldn't sue Google, if Harmory had a proper TCK license with
patent grant in it.

Am I seeing this through correctly?

~~~
wmf
No. First, understand that the Sun-ASF disagreement is older than Android.
Second, TCK licensing doesn't matter to Android because they would never pass
anyway.

The issue is really about Sun promising to certify Harmony, then realizing
that such certification would jeopardize the J2ME cash cow and finding a
sneaky way to break their promise. (I suspect the cow has already died from
other causes, but by now the parties are deeply invested in their respective
positions.)

~~~
va_coder
Won't mobile phones soon be powerful enough to run OpenJDK SE? Will this
matter in one year?

~~~
rbanffy
I think wmf implied the dead cow is also an irrelevant one. I am not sure
about it being dead - lots of phones still come with it and, if licensing
terms include number of units, that's quite a lot. It will die soon, but, in
the meantime, it may be getting Oracle some free money anyway.

