4 ms·

You're saying that I can do whatever I want with OpenJDK until it cuts into Oracle's revenue stream, at which point Oracle will sue me and keep suing me until t

You're saying that I can do whatever I want with OpenJDK until it cuts into Oracle's revenue stream, at which point Oracle will sue me and keep suing me until they find an argument that shuts me down? No thanks. Free software is based on irrevocable legally-granted rights, not some horrible company's largesses. If OpenJDK really is free software, I should be able to hack it such that it no longer conforms, stick it in a phone, and ship millions of copies without being sued. Google's case isn't unusual at all. The same logic applies to anyone reimplementing an existing API with anything but bug-for-bug compatibility. Your view means that we can improve nothing, delete nothing, and deprecate nothing, since as soon as an API implementation diverges from the original, it's suddenly not for "interoperability", but rather an illegal appropriation of somebody's revenue stream? That argument is blatantly inconsistent with free software principles. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just an ardent Oracle fan, not a paid shill. It's really hard to tell the difference sometimes. Please reconsider the effect Oracle's litigation has on the entire software ecosystem. Consider that we wouldn't even have Unix if its view prevailed. You should be ashamed of yourself.

pron 11y ago
> You're saying that I can do whatever I want with OpenJDK until it cuts into Oracle's revenue stream, at which point Oracle will sue me and keep suing me until they find an argument that shuts me down? Not at all. I'm saying that you can do whatever you want with OpenJDK/Java, but if you don't abide by either of their licenses -- the commercial or the open source license -- Oracle will come after you, but probably only if you pose a serious threat to them, or else they wouldn't bother. Do you know of a company of Oracle's size that acts any differently? In fact, Google expected the timid Sun to come after them, and it was only Sun's decline that stopped them. > Free software is based on irrevocable legally-granted rights, not some horrible company's largesses. It is, but free software does have a license, and you don't get those rights until you comply with the license. That applies to OpenJDK just as it does to Linux, both released under the same license, BTW. Google is adopting Java's open-source license just now. They had their reasons, but they most definitely did not until now. > I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just an ardent Oracle fan, not a paid shill I am far from a fan. Oracle is a terrible company, and I wish it was a different company that had bought Java. But Google is worse. So I guess you could say that in this case, Oracle is the lesser of two evils. But what really bugs me is that the huge Google PR machine has done everything in its power (and quite successfully) to confuse everyone about this case, and convince people that the lawsuit has any bearing on them whatsoever. The ferocity Oracle's legal team is legendary, but it doesn't come close to the legendary manipulativeness of Google's PR. Employing paid shills is much more a Google thing than an Oracle thing; Oracle prefers lawyers. I was, however, a fan of Sun. > Please reconsider the effect Oracle's litigation has on the entire software ecosystem. And what effect is that? I know that Google tries to convince people it has far-reaching effects, but the actual ruling doesn't seem to imply any of that. > Consider that we wouldn't even have Unix if its view prevailed. That's just Google PR talking. Let me make this short and hopefully clear: Google copied part of an Oracle/OSS API and broke compatibility in order to make a profit. They didn't try to build an interoperable alternative to Sun's Java, but to get into a ready-made market of Java tools and developers. The question of API copyrightability had never been settled, and whoever would have come after Unix after the ruling would (and certainly could) have done so before. Even if APIs are copyrightable, there's still fair use, two of those defenses -- interoperability and non-profit -- would apply to most implementations, but possibly not to Google's. Sure, maybe APIs shouldn't be copyrighted (again, this is only language-level APIs) -- I can see good argument for either side -- but the effect of their copyrightability on the software industry is at worst minimal, and is most likely nil because of a thing called "fair use". I am not aware of another case where a replication of an API was done both not in order to build a compatible product and for profit. Besides, their "view" wouldn't have even been made (as I said, Oracle didn't set out to make a legal point) if Google had only licensed Java in one of the two available ways, one of which they are finally doing now and the other they could have probably afforded at the time. Google knew full well that Sun would come after them, but hoped they could win in court.
- rewqfdsa 11y ago
  > That's just Google PR talking. Let me make this short and hopefully clear: Google copied part of an Oracle/OSS API and broke compatibility in order to make a profit. They didn't try to build an interoperable alternative to Sun's Java, but to get into a ready-made market of Java tools and developers. What's wrong with copying part of an API? You yourself admitting that I can do whatever I want with OpenJDK, including copying only part of it. I can then use this copy to make a product that turns a profit. If Oracle will sue me to this practice, then Google, not Oracle, is on the right side here.
  - pron 11y ago
    > What's wrong with copying part of an API? You yourself admitting that I can do whatever I want with OpenJDK, including copying only part of it. I can then use this copy to make a product that turns a profit. Absolutely, as long as you comply with the open source license, which is plain GPL in this case (just like Linux). Google didn't -- until today -- as they released Android under the Apache license rather than the GPL license. They always had the option of going GPL -- in which case Oracle would have not come after them -- but they didn't want to[1]. > If Oracle will sue me to this practice, then Google, not Oracle, is on the right side here. Google did not comply with the license (either license, actually). Their legal claim was that they don't need to comply with any license, because if APIs aren't copyrighted, then they're not Oracle's to give (i.e. to license). That legal claim, too, is perfectly reasonable (as is its opposite), but it seems clear to me that it was Google who was at least ethically, if not legally, wrong in this case. In any event, Java is also licensed with a standard open-source license (through OpenJDK), that you can use -- wholly or partially -- for any purpose whatsoever; Oracle has never sued anyone for using its code or APIs in this way for whatever purpose. --- [1]: Which is why people in the free software community, even though they believed copyright shouldn't apply to APIs, were pissed off at Google for going to great lengths (and basically asking for this lawsuit) all in order to avoid the GPL option, which has been open to them all along. For example, here is what the FSF had to say in 2010 on the matter (they were against Oracle's lawsuit because one of Oracle's tactics was to claim software patent infringement, which the FSF is against, as am I): "Oracle's lawsuit threatens to undo all the good will that has been built up in the years since... Unfortunately, Google didn't seem particularly concerned about this problem until after the suit was filed. The company still has not taken any clear position or action against software patents. And they could have avoided all this by building Android on top of IcedTea [an early OpenJDK distribution], a GPL-covered Java implementation based on Sun's original code, instead of an independent implementation under the Apache License... It's sad to see that Google apparently shunned those protections in order to make proprietary software development easier on Android." (emphasis mine. Source: https://www.fsf.org/news/oracle-v-google https://www.fsf.org/news/oracle-v-google) I will add that while Oracle has treated some of its acquired open-source projects abominably -- e.g. OpenSolaris :( -- it has been very good to OpenJDK (more than Sun), so much so that virtually all development on the runtime at Oracle is done on OpenJDK these days. Also, Oracle still maintains more open source software than Google (and possibly any other company save for RedHat), but I'm not too hopeful about its future treatment. However, OpenJDK is now way too big for Oracle to ruin even if they tried.

pron 11y ago

> You're saying that I can do whatever I want with OpenJDK until it cuts into Oracle's revenue stream, at which point Oracle will sue me and keep suing me until they find an argument that shuts me down? Not at all. I'm saying that you can do whatever you want with OpenJDK/Java, but if you don't abide by either of their licenses -- the commercial or the open source license -- Oracle will come after you, but probably only if you pose a serious threat to them, or else they wouldn't bother. Do you know of a company of Oracle's size that acts any differently? In fact, Google expected the timid Sun to come after them, and it was only Sun's decline that stopped them. > Free software is based on irrevocable legally-granted rights, not some horrible company's largesses. It is, but free software does have a license, and you don't get those rights until you comply with the license. That applies to OpenJDK just as it does to Linux, both released under the same license, BTW. Google is adopting Java's open-source license just now. They had their reasons, but they most definitely did not until now. > I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just an ardent Oracle fan, not a paid shill I am far from a fan. Oracle is a terrible company, and I wish it was a different company that had bought Java. But Google is worse. So I guess you could say that in this case, Oracle is the lesser of two evils. But what really bugs me is that the huge Google PR machine has done everything in its power (and quite successfully) to confuse everyone about this case, and convince people that the lawsuit has any bearing on them whatsoever. The ferocity Oracle's legal team is legendary, but it doesn't come close to the legendary manipulativeness of Google's PR. Employing paid shills is much more a Google thing than an Oracle thing; Oracle prefers lawyers. I was, however, a fan of Sun. > Please reconsider the effect Oracle's litigation has on the entire software ecosystem. And what effect is that? I know that Google tries to convince people it has far-reaching effects, but the actual ruling doesn't seem to imply any of that. > Consider that we wouldn't even have Unix if its view prevailed. That's just Google PR talking. Let me make this short and hopefully clear: Google copied part of an Oracle/OSS API and broke compatibility in order to make a profit. They didn't try to build an interoperable alternative to Sun's Java, but to get into a ready-made market of Java tools and developers. The question of API copyrightability had never been settled, and whoever would have come after Unix after the ruling would (and certainly could) have done so before. Even if APIs are copyrightable, there's still fair use, two of those defenses -- interoperability and non-profit -- would apply to most implementations, but possibly not to Google's. Sure, maybe APIs shouldn't be copyrighted (again, this is only language-level APIs) -- I can see good argument for either side -- but the effect of their copyrightability on the software industry is at worst minimal, and is most likely nil because of a thing called "fair use". I am not aware of another case where a replication of an API was done both not in order to build a compatible product and for profit. Besides, their "view" wouldn't have even been made (as I said, Oracle didn't set out to make a legal point) if Google had only licensed Java in one of the two available ways, one of which they are finally doing now and the other they could have probably afforded at the time. Google knew full well that Sun would come after them, but hoped they could win in court.

rewqfdsa 11y ago
> That's just Google PR talking. Let me make this short and hopefully clear: Google copied part of an Oracle/OSS API and broke compatibility in order to make a profit. They didn't try to build an interoperable alternative to Sun's Java, but to get into a ready-made market of Java tools and developers. What's wrong with copying part of an API? You yourself admitting that I can do whatever I want with OpenJDK, including copying only part of it. I can then use this copy to make a product that turns a profit. If Oracle will sue me to this practice, then Google, not Oracle, is on the right side here.
- pron 11y ago
  > What's wrong with copying part of an API? You yourself admitting that I can do whatever I want with OpenJDK, including copying only part of it. I can then use this copy to make a product that turns a profit. Absolutely, as long as you comply with the open source license, which is plain GPL in this case (just like Linux). Google didn't -- until today -- as they released Android under the Apache license rather than the GPL license. They always had the option of going GPL -- in which case Oracle would have not come after them -- but they didn't want to[1]. > If Oracle will sue me to this practice, then Google, not Oracle, is on the right side here. Google did not comply with the license (either license, actually). Their legal claim was that they don't need to comply with any license, because if APIs aren't copyrighted, then they're not Oracle's to give (i.e. to license). That legal claim, too, is perfectly reasonable (as is its opposite), but it seems clear to me that it was Google who was at least ethically, if not legally, wrong in this case. In any event, Java is also licensed with a standard open-source license (through OpenJDK), that you can use -- wholly or partially -- for any purpose whatsoever; Oracle has never sued anyone for using its code or APIs in this way for whatever purpose. --- [1]: Which is why people in the free software community, even though they believed copyright shouldn't apply to APIs, were pissed off at Google for going to great lengths (and basically asking for this lawsuit) all in order to avoid the GPL option, which has been open to them all along. For example, here is what the FSF had to say in 2010 on the matter (they were against Oracle's lawsuit because one of Oracle's tactics was to claim software patent infringement, which the FSF is against, as am I): "Oracle's lawsuit threatens to undo all the good will that has been built up in the years since... Unfortunately, Google didn't seem particularly concerned about this problem until after the suit was filed. The company still has not taken any clear position or action against software patents. And they could have avoided all this by building Android on top of IcedTea [an early OpenJDK distribution], a GPL-covered Java implementation based on Sun's original code, instead of an independent implementation under the Apache License... It's sad to see that Google apparently shunned those protections in order to make proprietary software development easier on Android." (emphasis mine. Source: https://www.fsf.org/news/oracle-v-google https://www.fsf.org/news/oracle-v-google) I will add that while Oracle has treated some of its acquired open-source projects abominably -- e.g. OpenSolaris :( -- it has been very good to OpenJDK (more than Sun), so much so that virtually all development on the runtime at Oracle is done on OpenJDK these days. Also, Oracle still maintains more open source software than Google (and possibly any other company save for RedHat), but I'm not too hopeful about its future treatment. However, OpenJDK is now way too big for Oracle to ruin even if they tried.