4 ms·

The article is a trainwreck. There is no difference between the Oracle Java API's and the OpenJDK API's.

mike_hearn 11y ago
There are, actually. The Oracle JDK has some features that the OpenJDK does not. Look at the 'commercial features' to see what: examples include the resource management API, AppCDS, Flight Recorder, a few other things I forgot.
- bitmapbrother 11y ago
  Yes, but the context of the article was in relation to the 37 API SSO's Oracle accused Google of copying.
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    I think it's like this: Google copies Java's API. Oracle sues Google, claiming "You copied our API! It's copyright! You're infringing!" Google says, "Fine. We'll stop using your copyrighted API. We're going to copy the API of OpenJDK, which is GPLed so we're completely free to do so, and which just happens to have the exact same API. Good luck suing us for that one." And the actual Android API doesn't change...
    - Reason077 11y ago
      They're not "copying the OpenJDK API". They're changing the Android Java runtime to actually use OpenJDK rather than its own proprietary implementation of the Java APIs. Which is, perhaps, all that Oracle wanted all along. Ater all, everybody wins from this. - Android developers get up-to-date Java APIs that aren't years behind other Java platforms. - Google gets to spend its engineering resources on things that matter specifically to Android rather than endlessly duplicating, and playing catch-up, to the OpenJDK platform. - And Oracle gets a major industry player behind Java rather than fragmenting it and creating a slightly-incompatible variant.
      - grizzles 11y ago
        Google's implementation isn't proprietary, it is Apache licensed. I think the idea of the parent comments holds. The irony is exquisite. Google is solving their copyright infringement problem by copying & distributing vastly more Oracle code.
        Pyxl101 11y ago
        It's not necessarily ironic. Oracle (or specifically Sun, which Oracle purchased) chose to create and distribute OpenJDK. They didn't choose to create Google's competing implementation, which perhaps they view as fragmenting the Java ecosystem.
        yincrash 11y ago
        Sun actually released the OpenJDK in response to the implementation that Android uses (Apache Harmony, not "proprietary Google"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Harmony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Harmony
      - guelo 11y ago
        That's true. It seems that alternatively Google could have relicensed their implementation as GPL and not have had to make any technical changes at all. Which shows that the only reason Google was maintaining their own implementation, and why they went through the lawsuit was just to keep GPL license out of their Java code. Seems nonsensical.
        yincrash 11y ago
        Google could not relicense APL code they did not write to GPLv2. The Java implementation is a subset of Apache Harmony, which they did not create from scratch.
        tadfisher 11y ago
        Oracle maintains ownership of the OpenJDK project, which is the point here. Google simply relicensing its reimplementation of the Java APIs would not change the fact that the reimplementation is infringing under the law.

There are, actually. The Oracle JDK has some features that the OpenJDK does not. Look at the 'commercial features' to see what: examples include the resource management API, AppCDS, Flight Recorder, a few other things I forgot.

bitmapbrother 11y ago
Yes, but the context of the article was in relation to the 37 API SSO's Oracle accused Google of copying.
- AnimalMuppet 11y ago
  I think it's like this: Google copies Java's API. Oracle sues Google, claiming "You copied our API! It's copyright! You're infringing!" Google says, "Fine. We'll stop using your copyrighted API. We're going to copy the API of OpenJDK, which is GPLed so we're completely free to do so, and which just happens to have the exact same API. Good luck suing us for that one." And the actual Android API doesn't change...
  - Reason077 11y ago
    They're not "copying the OpenJDK API". They're changing the Android Java runtime to actually use OpenJDK rather than its own proprietary implementation of the Java APIs. Which is, perhaps, all that Oracle wanted all along. Ater all, everybody wins from this. - Android developers get up-to-date Java APIs that aren't years behind other Java platforms. - Google gets to spend its engineering resources on things that matter specifically to Android rather than endlessly duplicating, and playing catch-up, to the OpenJDK platform. - And Oracle gets a major industry player behind Java rather than fragmenting it and creating a slightly-incompatible variant.
    - grizzles 11y ago
      Google's implementation isn't proprietary, it is Apache licensed. I think the idea of the parent comments holds. The irony is exquisite. Google is solving their copyright infringement problem by copying & distributing vastly more Oracle code.
      - Pyxl101 11y ago
        It's not necessarily ironic. Oracle (or specifically Sun, which Oracle purchased) chose to create and distribute OpenJDK. They didn't choose to create Google's competing implementation, which perhaps they view as fragmenting the Java ecosystem.
        yincrash 11y ago
        Sun actually released the OpenJDK in response to the implementation that Android uses (Apache Harmony, not "proprietary Google"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Harmony https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Harmony
    - guelo 11y ago
      That's true. It seems that alternatively Google could have relicensed their implementation as GPL and not have had to make any technical changes at all. Which shows that the only reason Google was maintaining their own implementation, and why they went through the lawsuit was just to keep GPL license out of their Java code. Seems nonsensical.
      - yincrash 11y ago
        Google could not relicense APL code they did not write to GPLv2. The Java implementation is a subset of Apache Harmony, which they did not create from scratch.
      - tadfisher 11y ago
        Oracle maintains ownership of the OpenJDK project, which is the point here. Google simply relicensing its reimplementation of the Java APIs would not change the fact that the reimplementation is infringing under the law.