could someone explain how Oracle could sue Google over android?
21 views
Skip to first unread message
phil.s...@gmail.com
Jul 22, 2010, 4:13:30 PM7/22/10
to The Java Posse
I listened to the latest podcast and there was a lot of discussion
about how Oracle could go after Google because Android is an alternate
java implementation. What is the basis for this?
see this about the microsoft/sun settlement:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-01-2001/jw-0124-iw-mssuncourt.html
Does Google have a similar licensing agreement with Sun/Oracle?
I just can't imagine that Google would leave itself open to a giant
lawsuit as the Dick/Joe suggested.
about how Oracle could go after Google because Android is an alternate
java implementation. What is the basis for this?
see this about the microsoft/sun settlement:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-01-2001/jw-0124-iw-mssuncourt.html
Does Google have a similar licensing agreement with Sun/Oracle?
I just can't imagine that Google would leave itself open to a giant
lawsuit as the Dick/Joe suggested.
Mark Derricutt
Jul 22, 2010, 5:42:32 PM7/22/10
to java...@googlegroups.com
I don't see how they could. Unlike MS they're not "changing" java.
However - I do see Google as the number 1 reason for us not having a
(*&#((* JAVA 7 JSR yet. All because Android is Apache Harmony under
the covers, and if they relaxed the field of use restrictions like
Apache wants, then Android can call themselves Java without having to
pay licensing ( or something I believe ).
I'd love to know some more concrete details of the implications ( I
could be totally wrong on things here ).
--
Pull me down under...
Neil Bartlett
Jul 23, 2010, 4:52:29 AM7/23/10
to The Java Posse
I agree with the first part, there doesn't seem to be much of a
problem because Google does not claim that Android is Java (TM). On
the other hand, there *may* be a case to answer with respect to
AppEngine, which does claim to be a Java runtime but in fact runs a
heavily modified version of Sun's JRE 1.6 that would never pass the
JCK. However they are probably off the hook with this as well, since
the runtime is not distributed to users.
Your reasoning about the absence of a Java 7 JSR is a bit screwy.
There's no JSR for Java 7 yet because Sun refused to allow Harmony
access to the JCK, in violation of the JCP participation agreement. As
a result, the Apache Foundation and other JCP Executive Committee
members (including Oracle before they bought Sun!) resolved not to
allow any umbrella JSRs (i.e. JSRs defining a new JRE version such as
Java 7, 8 etc) to pass. Even Sun with its special status in the JCP
did not have the power to force through a JSR in the face of a
majority of the Executive Committee voting against it.
The fact that Android uses Harmony seems to be neither here nor there
-- as already noted, Google does not claim that Android is Java and
therefore they do not need to pass the JCK which would allow use of
the Java trademark.
Note that Apache goes one step further and votes against *all* JSRs
until the JCK issue is resolved, i.e. not just umbrella ones, which is
a measure you may or may not agree with...
I simply wish that Oracle would start to clarify what they intend to
do about this issue. The Java community has been giving them the
benefit of the doubt, because we understand big acquisitions take time
to integrate and they have had other priorities. But for goodness
sake, the deal closed 6 months ago, and in that time there has been
precisely zero news about some of the biggest questions regarding the
future of Java. How will the JCP be governed? Will Harmony be allowed
access to the JCK without field of use restrictions? Will there ever
be a Java 7 JSR, or is the JCP no longer relevant to the future of
Java? Will Project Jigsaw be dropped?
Neil
On Jul 22, 10:42 pm, Mark Derricutt <m...@talios.com> wrote:
> I don't see how they could. Unlike MS they're not "changing" java.
>
> However - I do see Google as the number 1 reason for us not having a
> (*&#((* JAVA 7 JSR yet. All because Android is Apache Harmony under
> the covers, and if they relaxed the field of use restrictions like
> Apache wants, then Android can call themselves Java without having to
> pay licensing ( or something I believe ).
>
> I'd love to know some more concrete details of the implications ( I
> could be totally wrong on things here ).
>
> --
> Pull me down under...
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 8:13 AM, phil.swen...@gmail.com
problem because Google does not claim that Android is Java (TM). On
the other hand, there *may* be a case to answer with respect to
AppEngine, which does claim to be a Java runtime but in fact runs a
heavily modified version of Sun's JRE 1.6 that would never pass the
JCK. However they are probably off the hook with this as well, since
the runtime is not distributed to users.
Your reasoning about the absence of a Java 7 JSR is a bit screwy.
There's no JSR for Java 7 yet because Sun refused to allow Harmony
access to the JCK, in violation of the JCP participation agreement. As
a result, the Apache Foundation and other JCP Executive Committee
members (including Oracle before they bought Sun!) resolved not to
allow any umbrella JSRs (i.e. JSRs defining a new JRE version such as
Java 7, 8 etc) to pass. Even Sun with its special status in the JCP
did not have the power to force through a JSR in the face of a
majority of the Executive Committee voting against it.
The fact that Android uses Harmony seems to be neither here nor there
-- as already noted, Google does not claim that Android is Java and
therefore they do not need to pass the JCK which would allow use of
the Java trademark.
Note that Apache goes one step further and votes against *all* JSRs
until the JCK issue is resolved, i.e. not just umbrella ones, which is
a measure you may or may not agree with...
I simply wish that Oracle would start to clarify what they intend to
do about this issue. The Java community has been giving them the
benefit of the doubt, because we understand big acquisitions take time
to integrate and they have had other priorities. But for goodness
sake, the deal closed 6 months ago, and in that time there has been
precisely zero news about some of the biggest questions regarding the
future of Java. How will the JCP be governed? Will Harmony be allowed
access to the JCK without field of use restrictions? Will there ever
be a Java 7 JSR, or is the JCP no longer relevant to the future of
Java? Will Project Jigsaw be dropped?
Neil
On Jul 22, 10:42 pm, Mark Derricutt <m...@talios.com> wrote:
> I don't see how they could. Unlike MS they're not "changing" java.
>
> However - I do see Google as the number 1 reason for us not having a
> (*&#((* JAVA 7 JSR yet. All because Android is Apache Harmony under
> the covers, and if they relaxed the field of use restrictions like
> Apache wants, then Android can call themselves Java without having to
> pay licensing ( or something I believe ).
>
> I'd love to know some more concrete details of the implications ( I
> could be totally wrong on things here ).
>
> --
> Pull me down under...
>
Greg Reddin
Jul 23, 2010, 10:22:34 AM7/23/10
to java...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Neil Bartlett <njbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Note that Apache goes one step further and votes against *all* JSRs
> until the JCK issue is resolved, i.e. not just umbrella ones, ...> Note that Apache goes one step further and votes against *all* JSRs
Not quite. ASF votes "no" on all JSRs that are led by Sun (I assume
now Oracle) because Sun/Oracle is in violation of the JCP agreement.
ASF has voted "yes" on other JSRs since the issue arose, IIRC.
Greg
robogeek
Jul 23, 2010, 10:32:40 AM7/23/10
to The Java Posse
On Jul 22, 1:13 pm, "phil.swen...@gmail.com" <phil.swen...@gmail.com>
wrote:
There wouldn't be any basis for it so long as Google doesn't try to
say that Android is a proper implementation of Java. Sun/Oracle uses
trademark licensing terms to limit what widgets can be claimed to
contain Java(TM).
Android fails to be compatible with Java on many fronts - incomplete
runtime library that's not compatible with any JSR - incompatible byte
codes - lack of JNI - etc etc. Just because it has a compiler that
compiles the Java language, and just because some of the runtime
classes might be compatible with the Java API, doesn't mean it's Java.
Where Microsoft got into trouble was by distributing a thing which
failed compatibility tests and then said it was Java. So long as
Google doesn't stick the 'Java' label on it they'll be okay. legally
But... is it good thing? Android, by being incompatible with the Java
ecosystem, is increasing fragmentation in the world. This will lead
to greater entropy and the eventual heat death of the universe. We
must stop this and get Android to be compatible with Java to decrease
the entropy in the world and save humanity.
+ David Herron
http://davidherron.com
wrote:
say that Android is a proper implementation of Java. Sun/Oracle uses
trademark licensing terms to limit what widgets can be claimed to
contain Java(TM).
Android fails to be compatible with Java on many fronts - incomplete
runtime library that's not compatible with any JSR - incompatible byte
codes - lack of JNI - etc etc. Just because it has a compiler that
compiles the Java language, and just because some of the runtime
classes might be compatible with the Java API, doesn't mean it's Java.
Where Microsoft got into trouble was by distributing a thing which
failed compatibility tests and then said it was Java. So long as
Google doesn't stick the 'Java' label on it they'll be okay. legally
But... is it good thing? Android, by being incompatible with the Java
ecosystem, is increasing fragmentation in the world. This will lead
to greater entropy and the eventual heat death of the universe. We
must stop this and get Android to be compatible with Java to decrease
the entropy in the world and save humanity.
+ David Herron
http://davidherron.com
Fabrizio Giudici
Jul 23, 2010, 10:48:53 AM7/23/10
to java...@googlegroups.com, robogeek
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hash: SHA1
On 7/23/10 16:32 , robogeek wrote:
>
>
> But... is it good thing? Android, by being incompatible with the
> Java ecosystem, is increasing fragmentation in the world. This
> will lead to greater entropy and the eventual heat death of the
> universe. We must stop this and get Android to be compatible with
> Java to decrease the entropy in the world and save humanity.
Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that any initiative to defragment is
good. No, because:
1. Android won't give up with Dalvik
2. Android will never implement Swing or AWT or other stuff that
Google doesn't want on Android.
So, it's impossible to have a "full Java" convergence of Android.
Technically, the Java thing should be split in modules (such as JME)
with separate TCK for each module, and Android could aim at being
compatible with some modules (language + core runtime - swing etc...).
Perhaps it could go in hand with the JDK 7 modularization (but I don't
know if the JDK 7 modularization boundaries are such as I depicted
them, i.e. if Swing is properly modularized).
In any case I don't think this will ever happen for political reasons.
- --
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
Fabrizio...@tidalwave.it
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkxJq9UACgkQeDweFqgUGxdglwCgsnIPxQlPkGKaBI36+Y6Z18Jj
x8YAoJiCYi2OehBmluhGYknNNyEi75Dj
=ORAr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
phil.s...@gmail.com
Jul 23, 2010, 11:40:04 AM7/23/10
to The Java Posse
the reason this was brought up in the podcast is Dick was wondering
why Apple/Google aren't courting Java devs.
My guess is 1) they don't need to, both are getting tons of devs 2)
apple sees java as a bunch of enterprise devs - which it considers
uninteresting for the most part.
On Jul 23, 8:48 am, Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it>
wrote:
> Fabrizio.Giud...@tidalwave.it
why Apple/Google aren't courting Java devs.
My guess is 1) they don't need to, both are getting tons of devs 2)
apple sees java as a bunch of enterprise devs - which it considers
uninteresting for the most part.
On Jul 23, 8:48 am, Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it>
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Casper Bang
Jul 23, 2010, 3:19:54 PM7/23/10
to The Java Posse
> But... is it good thing? Android, by being incompatible with the Java
> ecosystem, is increasing fragmentation in the world. This will lead
> to greater entropy and the eventual heat death of the universe. We
> must stop this and get Android to be compatible with Java to decrease
> the entropy in the world and save humanity.
Ultimately it all comes down to whether you want a stale official
> ecosystem, is increasing fragmentation in the world. This will lead
> to greater entropy and the eventual heat death of the universe. We
> must stop this and get Android to be compatible with Java to decrease
> the entropy in the world and save humanity.
standard or a vibrant de-facto standard. I say let's push the state of
art a bit within the Java space, it's long needed. Sun could've done
this themselves a long time ago. Why is it it's now Google utilizing
"Java" for web client development (GWT), hosted-server development
(GAE) and on mobile devices (Android)?
As to the entropy, that a function of time and will always be there;
the difference is how you deal with it, whether you swallow a jagged
pill occasionally or have a bulldozer push the problems ahead of you.
Or to put it another way, if Google had used Ecma-334 (C#) for their
stuff, would Java (TM) be in a better state now?
/Casper
Casper Bang
Jul 23, 2010, 3:25:31 PM7/23/10
to The Java Posse
Apropos insufficient and verbose official standards; Rob Pike points
fingers at C++ and Java at this years OSCON:
http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/google-executive-frustrated-java-c-complexity-375
fingers at C++ and Java at this years OSCON:
http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/google-executive-frustrated-java-c-complexity-375
mwa...@gmail.com
Jul 23, 2010, 4:21:23 PM7/23/10
to The Java Posse
> the reason this was brought up in the podcast is Dick was wondering
why Apple/Google aren't courting Java devs.
I don't really agree with this point. Romain Guy speaks at Devoxx. Google App Engine is also talked about there. They produce Eclipse plugins for all their tools.why Apple/Google aren't courting Java devs.
Java devs who don't know by now that Android is Java (enough) or that Google has a lot of Java tools probably just aren't interested.
Sent by Moandji's android-servant
----- Reply message -----
From: "phil.s...@gmail.com" <phil.s...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jul 23, 2010 17:40
Subject: [The Java Posse] Re: could someone explain how Oracle could sue Google over android?
To: "The Java Posse" <java...@googlegroups.com>
the reason this was brought up in the podcast is Dick was wondering
why Apple/Google aren't courting Java devs.
My guess is 1) they don't need to, both are getting tons of devs 2)
apple sees java as a bunch of enterprise devs - which it considers
uninteresting for the most part.
On Jul 23, 8:48 am, Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it>
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 7/23/10 16:32 , robogeek wrote:
>
> > But... is it good thing? Android, by being incompatible with the
> > Java ecosystem, is increasing fragmentation in the world. This
> > will lead to greater entropy and the eventual heat death of the
> > universe. We must stop this and get Android to be compatible with
> > Java to decrease the entropy in the world and save humanity.
>
>
> > But... is it good thing? Android, by being incompatible with the
> > Java ecosystem, is increasing fragmentation in the world. This
> > will lead to greater entropy and the eventual heat death of the
> > universe. We must stop this and get Android to be compatible with
> > Java to decrease the entropy in the world and save humanity.
>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to java...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
Reinier Zwitserloot
Jul 24, 2010, 3:36:44 PM7/24/10
to The Java Posse
So, Android using the harmony codebase is nefarious?
That seems like a bit of a strange conclusion!
On Jul 22, 11:42 pm, Mark Derricutt <m...@talios.com> wrote:
> I don't see how they could. Unlike MS they're not "changing" java.
>
> However - I do see Google as the number 1 reason for us not having a
> (*&#((* JAVA 7 JSR yet. All because Android is Apache Harmony under
> the covers, and if they relaxed the field of use restrictions like
> Apache wants, then Android can call themselves Java without having to
> pay licensing ( or something I believe ).
>
> I'd love to know some more concrete details of the implications ( I
> could be totally wrong on things here ).
>
> --
> Pull me down under...
>
> On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 8:13 AM, phil.swen...@gmail.com
That seems like a bit of a strange conclusion!
On Jul 22, 11:42 pm, Mark Derricutt <m...@talios.com> wrote:
> I don't see how they could. Unlike MS they're not "changing" java.
>
> However - I do see Google as the number 1 reason for us not having a
> (*&#((* JAVA 7 JSR yet. All because Android is Apache Harmony under
> the covers, and if they relaxed the field of use restrictions like
> Apache wants, then Android can call themselves Java without having to
> pay licensing ( or something I believe ).
>
> I'd love to know some more concrete details of the implications ( I
> could be totally wrong on things here ).
>
> --
> Pull me down under...
>
Fabrizio Giudici
Jul 25, 2010, 5:37:38 AM7/25/10
to java...@googlegroups.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 7/24/10 21:36 , Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> So, Android using the harmony codebase is nefarious?
>
> That seems like a bit of a strange conclusion!
... and back to the technical point, I don't see how Google could have
Android called Java by any means. The fact that they entirely miss
e.g. AWT or Swing would clearly make the TCK fail.
- --
Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iEYEARECAAYFAkxMBeIACgkQeDweFqgUGxdtDwCdEgqp0Ad3PnRGuyWFACiyEha0
S44AnRs2AEKMnyGnZGENwE/Vj6rqB2a8
=YW4E
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reinier Zwitserloot
Jul 26, 2010, 12:36:40 PM7/26/10
to The Java Posse
Indeed. Their current solution, which, as Dick so eloquently repeated
in front of the mirror ad nauseam, is:
"Android is java source code compiled into a dalvik executable", which
essentially highlights that Android is Java (the language) but not
Java (the VM), though it is partly Java (the complete runtime
library).
Yes, Android is java, not java, and partly java, all at once. And this
is perfectly sensible for a phone, really. I'm not really faulting
sun / oracle for this either, but in retrospect it might have been
nice to split up both the TCK and the branding rules to allow things
to call themselves Java (the language) legally, without also calling
themselves Java (the VM) or Java (the runtime library). Then again,
the whole write once run anywhere model sort of implies you can rely
on all 3. So, I understand the decisions made by all sides.
I'm with Dick on this: the politics bore me and annoy me. Android is
by virtually all measures that count "java". It uses primarily the
same libraries, it uses exactly the same language, and it can more or
less run class files.
On Jul 25, 11:37 am, Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it>
wrote:
in front of the mirror ad nauseam, is:
"Android is java source code compiled into a dalvik executable", which
essentially highlights that Android is Java (the language) but not
Java (the VM), though it is partly Java (the complete runtime
library).
Yes, Android is java, not java, and partly java, all at once. And this
is perfectly sensible for a phone, really. I'm not really faulting
sun / oracle for this either, but in retrospect it might have been
nice to split up both the TCK and the branding rules to allow things
to call themselves Java (the language) legally, without also calling
themselves Java (the VM) or Java (the runtime library). Then again,
the whole write once run anywhere model sort of implies you can rely
on all 3. So, I understand the decisions made by all sides.
I'm with Dick on this: the politics bore me and annoy me. Android is
by virtually all measures that count "java". It uses primarily the
same libraries, it uses exactly the same language, and it can more or
less run class files.
On Jul 25, 11:37 am, Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it>
wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 7/24/10 21:36 , Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
>
> > So, Android using the harmony codebase is nefarious?
>
> > That seems like a bit of a strange conclusion!
>
> ... and back to the technical point, I don't see how Google could have
> Android called Java by any means. The fact that they entirely miss
> e.g. AWT or Swing would clearly make the TCK fail.
>
> - --
> Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
> Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
> java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici -www.tidalwave.it/people
> Fabrizio.Giud...@tidalwave.it
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 7/24/10 21:36 , Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
>
> > So, Android using the harmony codebase is nefarious?
>
> > That seems like a bit of a strange conclusion!
>
> ... and back to the technical point, I don't see how Google could have
> Android called Java by any means. The fact that they entirely miss
> e.g. AWT or Swing would clearly make the TCK fail.
>
> - --
> Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager
> Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
> java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici -www.tidalwave.it/people
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin)
Igor Khotin
Jul 29, 2010, 6:10:59 PM7/29/10
to The Java Posse
Android definitely is not going to be compatible with Java. Google
decided to go that way, and they had their own reasons. They choose
register based Dalvik VM instead of stack-based JVM to optimize it for
ARM processors dominant in the mobile space. And they decided to
create their own GUI instead of Swing/AWT/JavaME GUI support.
I agree with Neil that there is hardy any resemblance with the
Microsoft case. Microsoft basically tried to fork Java breaking WORA
while using Java(TM). And the main goal was to settle Java developers
on Windows-dependent extensions. There was a real reason for the suit.
Google's making fork targeted on different platform while not using
the trademark. And their goal is to make competitive mobile platform
which is not going to run JavaME anyway (I don't believe that ME is
suitable for modern smartphones). Android main competitors are outside
of Oracle/Sun currently targeted platforms (JavaME and Android have
some overlap, but when the first is just an application sandbox,
Android is a full-blown application stack). So I think there is no
good reason for Oracle/Sun to sue Google.
So what Sun/Oracle and Google have to do with it?
I think Android should be called Java. That is beneficial to both
Oracle and Google. Since Android is a quite successful mobile
platform, it should become something like another Java profile for
smartphones. Moreover, there must be open way to do it with the
community. Sometimes it is hard to drive innovation without
fragmentation of the platform. And in that sense, fragmentation could
be good after all.
Sometimes standards are good, but sometimes they are not flexible
enough in the moving hi-tech world.
At some point standards become too heavy for new entrants to enter the
market with innovative technology. It is too heavy and expensive to
implement and too restrictive for innovation. As a result, we see
forks of Java – like Android. You have a trade off to keep full
compatibility and Java(TM) or make technology incompatible but more
suited for the task. And what is the point in technology if it is not
suited for task for the sake of compatibility? Well... it is always a
trade off.
In time, if nothing will change in licensing policy, we could see more
forks of Java. They will look exactly like Java, will use Java
language, Java open-source libraries, Java toolchain and huge
developer base but will not be entitled to be called Java.
Platform modularization and more versatile profiles could be the
answer. Maybe Oracle/Sun should change their licensing policy. I don't
think that allowing to call Java(TM) everything that runs on some kind
of VM is a good answer – there always must be strict compatibility
requirements. But, for example, they could establish several
trademarks – Java(TM), Smells like Java(TM) etc... Give them different
compatibility levels. So some simple Java implementations (which
simply don't have any reasons to support full-blown Java stack) could
also be called SomethingLikeJava (TM).
My concern is that Oracle is not the company which adopts but the
company that pushes. So they will continue to use old licensing terms
and will be promoting JavaME+JavaFX instead of using the job already
done for them by Google in developing new generation mobile platform.
Igor
On Jul 22, 11:13 pm, "phil.swen...@gmail.com" <phil.swen...@gmail.com>
wrote:
decided to go that way, and they had their own reasons. They choose
register based Dalvik VM instead of stack-based JVM to optimize it for
ARM processors dominant in the mobile space. And they decided to
create their own GUI instead of Swing/AWT/JavaME GUI support.
I agree with Neil that there is hardy any resemblance with the
Microsoft case. Microsoft basically tried to fork Java breaking WORA
while using Java(TM). And the main goal was to settle Java developers
on Windows-dependent extensions. There was a real reason for the suit.
Google's making fork targeted on different platform while not using
the trademark. And their goal is to make competitive mobile platform
which is not going to run JavaME anyway (I don't believe that ME is
suitable for modern smartphones). Android main competitors are outside
of Oracle/Sun currently targeted platforms (JavaME and Android have
some overlap, but when the first is just an application sandbox,
Android is a full-blown application stack). So I think there is no
good reason for Oracle/Sun to sue Google.
So what Sun/Oracle and Google have to do with it?
I think Android should be called Java. That is beneficial to both
Oracle and Google. Since Android is a quite successful mobile
platform, it should become something like another Java profile for
smartphones. Moreover, there must be open way to do it with the
community. Sometimes it is hard to drive innovation without
fragmentation of the platform. And in that sense, fragmentation could
be good after all.
Sometimes standards are good, but sometimes they are not flexible
enough in the moving hi-tech world.
At some point standards become too heavy for new entrants to enter the
market with innovative technology. It is too heavy and expensive to
implement and too restrictive for innovation. As a result, we see
forks of Java – like Android. You have a trade off to keep full
compatibility and Java(TM) or make technology incompatible but more
suited for the task. And what is the point in technology if it is not
suited for task for the sake of compatibility? Well... it is always a
trade off.
In time, if nothing will change in licensing policy, we could see more
forks of Java. They will look exactly like Java, will use Java
language, Java open-source libraries, Java toolchain and huge
developer base but will not be entitled to be called Java.
Platform modularization and more versatile profiles could be the
answer. Maybe Oracle/Sun should change their licensing policy. I don't
think that allowing to call Java(TM) everything that runs on some kind
of VM is a good answer – there always must be strict compatibility
requirements. But, for example, they could establish several
trademarks – Java(TM), Smells like Java(TM) etc... Give them different
compatibility levels. So some simple Java implementations (which
simply don't have any reasons to support full-blown Java stack) could
also be called SomethingLikeJava (TM).
My concern is that Oracle is not the company which adopts but the
company that pushes. So they will continue to use old licensing terms
and will be promoting JavaME+JavaFX instead of using the job already
done for them by Google in developing new generation mobile platform.
Igor
On Jul 22, 11:13 pm, "phil.swen...@gmail.com" <phil.swen...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Spencer Uresk
Aug 12, 2010, 9:14:14 PM8/12/10
to The Java Posse
Well, apparently, this is how:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38684074/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
On Jul 22, 2:13 pm, "phil.swen...@gmail.com" <phil.swen...@gmail.com>
wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38684074/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
On Jul 22, 2:13 pm, "phil.swen...@gmail.com" <phil.swen...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Nick Brown
Aug 12, 2010, 11:24:47 PM8/12/10
to The Java Posse
Moandji Ezana
Aug 13, 2010, 3:16:41 AM8/13/10
to java...@googlegroups.com
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages