14 ms·

Sun, Oracle, Android, Google, Mozilla and JDK Copyleft FUD

161 points by g1n016399 11y ago

rms_returns 11y ago
The important thing is that Java should not be allowed to be owned and trolled upon by companies. Java belongs to the community that developed it collectively, not to a single corporation that paid bucks to purchase it from Sun. And Java IS open source. Lets not allow Oracle to monopolize and troll the API spec. If we allow that to happen, it will open a floodgates of patent trolls across the United States and the victims could be innocent startups who have just begun struggling and innovating in the market.
- tajen 11y ago
  I agree with you for the situations you quote, however the spirit of the law is here to prevent incompatible copycats to fork off. If Microsoft launched their own version of Java with a tiny number of incompatibilities, this law could be reused against them.
- icebraining 11y ago
  "Lets not allow" sounds nice, but how do you actually expect us to accomplish this? After all, Oracle does own most of the code in OpenJDK, and even the contributions must be accompanied by a signed agreement giving them joint ownership of the copyright.
  - rms_returns 11y ago
    > how do you actually expect us to accomplish this? As a citizen, you can vote for legislators and senators who are of sane-mind and who understand technology enough to understand the hilarity of this situation. After all, you can read everything about them online when a candidate stands for an election, its not like some developing/third-world country where information and media are controlled.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    > even the contributions must be accompanied by a signed agreement giving them joint ownership of the copyright. Well, we could just all move to Germany, where ownership over copyright can never be signed away, and then fork Java.
defenestration 11y ago
Some quotes to quickly understand what is going on. Andreas Gal, Former CTO of Mozilla, wrote yesterday: "... a curious event got my attention: A commit appeared in the Android code base that indicates that Google is abandoning its own re-implementation of Java in favor of Oracle’s original Java implementation. I’ll try to explain why I think this is a huge change and will have far-reaching implications for Android and the Android ecosystem." Source: http://andreasgal.com/2016/01/05/oracle-sinks-its-claws-into-android/ http://andreasgal.com/2016/01/05/oracle-sinks-its-claws-into... Bradley M. Kuhn, in charge with the task of enforcing the GPL for Linux, wrote today: "Thus, my conclusion about this situation is quite different than the pundits and link-bait news articles. I speculate that Google weighed a technical decision against its own copyleft compliance processes, and determined that Google would succeed in its compliance efforts on Android, and thus won't face compliance problems, and can therefore easily benefit technically from the better code. However, for those many downstream redistributors of Android who fail at license compliance already, the ironic outcome is that you may finally find out how friendly and reasonable Conservancy's Linux GPL enforcement truly is, once you compare it with GPL enforcement from a company like Oracle, who holds avarice, not software freedom, as its primary moral principle." Source: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2016/01/05/jdk-in-android.html http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2016/01/05/jdk-in-android.html
- chei0aiV 11y ago
  He isn't going to be able to enforce the GPL for Linux much longer as SFC needs about 1800 supporters to be able to continue their eminently reasonable copyleft compliance work. https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...
azakai 11y ago
Why is there "Mozilla" in the hn title here, but not in the article's title? (nor the article body, except for a small aside about the MPL license, in parentheses)
- bipin_nag 11y ago
  Its a response to earlier article http://andreasgal.com/2016/01/05/oracle-sinks-its-claws-into-android/ http://andreasgal.com/2016/01/05/oracle-sinks-its-claws-into... by former Mozilla CTO.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - auvrw 11y ago
    heh, Swing is part of the android api now.
    - izacus 11y ago
      Which is just one of the total lies written in that article (Swing is not and will not be part of Android API which you can easily check in commits). Sadly Andreas doesn't really understand what he was writing about :/
  - rockdoe 11y ago
    "former" being a key word. Again, no idea why "Mozilla" is in the title here. They're not involved at all.
- pcwalton 11y ago
  > Why is there "Mozilla" in the hn title here, but not in the article's title? (nor the article body, except for a small aside about the MPL license, in parentheses) Yeah, this seems to be a clear case of an editorialized article title. :(
pron 11y ago
This entire thing may be confusing to a lot of people, as many are already confused by what the entire Android court case was about. The confusion is not accidental. Google's very extensive PR machine has put in a lot of resources to make sure people are confused (what Oracle puts into lawyers, Google puts into PR). But just to lay down a few facts: Since 2006/7, Java has been available under two licenses: commercial and open-source. The commercial license allows free implementation of the Java APIs and has a full patent grant, but requires conformance with the Java TCK (Technology Compatibility Kit) and requires payment if used in mobile devices (this was Java's main revenue stream for a long time). It is also possible to license the JDK source from Oracle under the commercial license for a fee. The same JDK is also released under the GPL. This license is completely free and unencumbered (the GPL itself prohibits any restrictions). It does not require compatibility (unless you want to call the result "Java"), and has no field of use restrictions. It also has a full (implicit) patent grant. As this article notes, OpenJDK's copyleft is not viral either (certainly not more than Linux): applications and libraries running on top of it are unaffected due to the "classpath exception". You can do whatever you like with Java when you use it under the terms of its open-source license: use the implementation, use just the APIs and implement it yourself, use the whole thing or just small portion, pass the TCK, not pass the TCK, fork it or not. You are even allowed to use it to implement .NET. Google has had both of these options for licensing Java (at least since May 2007, but that was still before Android was released). Until very recently, Google chose neither. They couldn't reach an agreement with Sun on the fee for the first license, and didn't like the second (possibly because they feared that phone manufacturers would reject a GPL runtime, classpath exception or no). Instead, they chose to argue in court that the APIs are not Oracle's to license[1]. What has changed now? Perhaps Google realized that given Android's success, phone vendors would swallow whatever license Google gives them. In any event this is a win for everyone: Google wins because they will need to spend less resources on maintaining Android, Oracle wins because Java will now be on Android, and Android and Java developers win because they'll have a better runtime and greater compatibility. This is contingent, however, on Google not forking OpenJDK too much beyond compatibility; the license does allow them to do so. Yes, the mainline OpenJDK project is steered by the JCP (Google, Intel, Twitter, and IBM are all members) and Oracle does have veto power, but that is just the project governance. Anyone is free to fork OpenJDK, as long as they don't call the result Java (unless they fork and choose to pass the TCK). The situation is no different from other large open-source projects. [1]: I have no opinion on whether or not Google's actions were legally justified (I do have an opinion about their ethics), but I do know that unlike Google's PR line, the ruling has little or no effect on the industry. Google's actions with Java's APIs were quite different from any other API implementation that I know of. Also, the ruling does not apply to web APIs. See discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10811011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10811011.
throwaway_forcl 11y ago
I'm not sure how common knowledge this is, but Oracle is quietly going after any company of any significant size which uses Java in their software at all. It's not just the embedded stuff either; simply using Java in enterprise software is enough to bring them running with their team of lawyers threatening a lawsuit. These suits are being settled at large sums without raising any external indication that this is going on. It's not the big guys or the startups that have to worry, it's the mid-sized companies that know a long, protracted lawsuit with Oracle will not end well for them.
- pron 11y ago
  That is completely false.
- dlandis 11y ago
  No, I don't think this is "common knowledge" at all. Can you site any source whatsoever for this or reference a concurring post somewhere?
- pjmlp 11y ago
  Both Sun and Oracle have zero issues with companies that follow the Java license. There are plenty of happy JVM vendors to choose that haven't had any problem to comply with the license: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machines Microsoft with its J++ fork and Google with Android Java have no else but themselves to blame. But apparently Google gets a free pass while Microsoft not, because "hey it's Google and they are sooo cool".
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - icebraining 11y ago
    I don't disagree with your rebuttal of GP's post, that said, Google with Android Java have no else but themselves to blame. That argument is equivalent to "well, you should just have not left your door unlocked". Just because Google could have used OpenJDK and thus avoid the lawsuit doesn't mean they should have to do so. And Microsoft's case is completely different, as they did get a license from Sun, and preceded to deliberately violate it, with the intention (as we know from the internal emails and documents) of killing Java.
dingo_bat 11y ago
All these complex licences (GPL2, GPL3, LGPL, Least GPL, etc) do nothing except create confusion about which license to use. I have found a simple solution that allows me to focus on my work and not on the legalese; I just use the MIT license.
- timonovici 11y ago
  If you've ever read some ToA, or EULA, you won't find GPL that bad regarding the language and length. Also, simplified/explained versions exists, which should make it more digestible. As the author of the article said, it's a tool, and you may or may not use it. Don't downplay the need for a copyleft licence (which a cool hack around copyright, if you ask me): some people use is from a philosophical reason, and some - as the basis for their entire business model.
  - mixologic 11y ago
    Reading the GPL at length, it seems as though it were written as if the only build process were C, and the only way to run software was on a single computer. The GPL is unclear when it comes to how it applies to something as complex as a content management system that could be deployed and running as a single service across multiple servers. The language it uses (linking, distribution, even 'code' itself) is ambiguous. And apparently the only clear way to ensure that you are in compliance with it is a shakedown from the Software Freedom Conservancy to grant you permission to use it in ways it was never written to handle. The principles of copyleft are tremendously valuable, I just wish we had a modern license that reflected the reality of the modern internet, and modern software.
    - yrro 11y ago
      Like GPL3 or AGPL?
      - anon1385 11y ago
        A lot of GPL advocates don't like the AGPL. Presumably because they make a living from proprietary web apps that use GPL'd code.
guelo 11y ago
It's weird how uncommon the knowledge that Google lost the lawsuit is. They lost it in appeal at the Federal Circuit. There is a remaining "fair use" decision from the lower courts but Google doesn't have much hope there. Google's current approach using Harmony's clean-room API implementation has been basically deemed illegal. Google will likely have to pay millions if not billions to Oracle for copyright infringement. And they will continue to be infringing as long as they are distributing their current Android systems. P.S. The law of the land is now that when you create an API it is copyrighted.
- curt15 11y ago
  >P.S. The law of the land is now that when you create an API it is copyrighted. No, it's just the law of the Federal Circuit and only when interpreting 9th circuit law. Their decision is not binding precedent on any of the usual circuits, and their usual domain is patent law, not copyright law.
  - bitwize 11y ago
    No. The Federal Circuit has subject matter jurisdiction, not geographic jurisdiction. Their decisions are binding precedent throughout the United States.
    - rayiner 11y ago
      They don't have subject matter jurisdiction over copyright. Their decision on a copyright case isn't binding in other circuits.
      - josaka 11y ago
        I think that is correct. This case is a little misleading because there were both patent and copyright claims at the district court level. As a result of the patent claims, the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction over the entire case, even though the copyright claims were to be adjudicated under 9th Circuit precedent. If they had only brought copyright claims, this appeal would have been heard at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
kevingadd 11y ago
I find it hard to believe that the author of this post didn't know better than to refer to Andreas as a "pundit". I have my many disagreements with him personally but it's ridiculous to treat him as a tech media talking head when his opinions on the subject are clearly based on multiple years shipping an Android-derived operating system on phones. Not to mention Firefox for Android, which I think he had some involvement with as well. The post as a whole seems to be intended to frame disagreement with Mr. Kuhn's PoV as coming from uninformed rabble and media talking heads. The post itself is well-written and thoughtfully argued, so it's disappointing that it's undermined by the author's choice of tone. If anyone is qualified to share their detailed thoughts on the OpenJDK/Android move, former/current officers of Mozilla are high on that list.
- izacus 11y ago
  Unfortunately Andreas' post was very misinformed and full of statements that simply weren't true (like the quip about Swing for example) which kinda supports the scepticism. I'm not sure if Andreas really knew what he was writing about in detail.
- rockdoe 11y ago
  Gal's post is full of mistakes, so he deserves all the criticism.
- incepted 11y ago
  Andreas' post is filled with incorrect statements, such as: > Swing will now sit on every Android phone, using up resources. It's pretty worrying that the former Mozilla CTO seems to be so uninformed about a topic or -- worse -- decided to write an article on a topic without even spending a few minutes researching it and understanding the implications. It doesn't reflect well on Mozilla either that they hired someone who seems to be so out of his depth on core matters to Mozilla's business.
  - throwaway160106 11y ago
    Well, that is the same company that put Gary "JavaScript rendering engine" Kovacs at the helm as CEO.
wbillingsley 11y ago
A bit undermined by speculation like "we should expect Oracle to..." and "despite Oracle's expected nastiness" being so central to the analysis. If we're talking speculation, then I'm guessing the next piece of news might be an announcement that Google is buying Java and Oracle's Java team. The line of thinking goes... - Despite currently looking like losing a lawsuit, Google has just cosied closer to Oracle's version of Java. (Something's afoot...) - Despite currently looking like winning a lawsuit, and Java 8 being very well received, Oracle's rumoured to have just let its Java evangelists go, and to be less interested in Java than it used to be. (They look willing to sell...) - JavaOne was apparently a bit light on announcements (Could something other than just work on Java 9 be distracting them and making them put some plans on hold for a mo...) - Having a litigious competitor own a key piece of Android is surely a pain point for Google that gets more painful as Android keeps storming ahead. Buying it would make that pain go away. - Google's looking at possibly having to pay some money in the lawsuit, and will likely want to get something for it - Oracle's looking at an uncertain return from the lawsuit, hasn't extracted that much revenue from Java itself, and might just be happy to take some cash for someone else to be custodian of it from here on
- kuschku 11y ago
  On the other hand, a lot of companies using Java (including SIEMENS, SAP, etc) might oppose such a move from Google, and even end up buying Oracles Java team themselves. Similar to how people expected Microsoft or Google to buy here maps, and then a bunch of car manufacturers bought it (due to wanting to have an open alternative usable in their cars, without relying on an oligopol)
po1nter 11y ago
I'm wondering why doesn't Google ditch Java entirely and create something like XobotOS[1]. I know it wouldn't be a popular move but at least the devs will get a decent language to use (C#) and users will have a better performing OS[2] [1]: https://github.com/xamarin/XobotOS https://github.com/xamarin/XobotOS [2]: https://blog.xamarin.com/android-in-c-sharp/ https://blog.xamarin.com/android-in-c-sharp/
- giancarlostoro 11y ago
  I've wondered the same. Apple did a good move with Swift. Not sure why Google doesn't invest in their own language. Would be really nice to see a full on native and new language for Android by Google.
  - dingo_bat 11y ago
    I'm wondering why this is downvoted. I would love to have an official Android language that is better suited to mobile than Java. Instead of hacking away at the JVM (or cloning it) to make it work properly on CPU/memory/power-limited devices.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      Java (as J2ME) has been running on mobile devices for more than a decade with ample performance.
      - dingo_bat 11y ago
        J2ME never had near enough functionality for the apps to do anything very interesting. I do not recall a single J2ME app apart from Opera Mini which was worth using. All the good (by the standards of that time) apps were non-J2ME, at least on Symbian and Windows Mobile. So even though it was fast enough, I wouldn't compare it to Java as it exists for Android now.
        nitrogen 11y ago
mtgx 11y ago
> Eventually, (slowly but surely) GPL enforcement will adjudicate the widespread problem of poor Linux license compliance — one way or the other So when is that going to happen? The Linux Foundation just stopped funding the Software Freedom Conservancy, in a concerted effort with others to kill it and any GPL enforcement.
- chei0aiV 11y ago
  When you, everyone else in this thread and all your friends become supporters of the Software Freedom Conservancy, then they will have enough funding to continue GPL compliance efforts. Right now they are about 50 supporters below the level needed to continue basic services (but do no compliance activities). They need a few thousand more supporters to keep up with GPL compliance activities. http://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ http://sfconservancy.org/supporter/
invalidname 11y ago
Another response to the article with a somewhat different angle available here: https://www.codenameone.com/blog/debating-brendan-eich-over-android-openjdk-move.html https://www.codenameone.com/blog/debating-brendan-eich-over-...
baroa 11y ago
So Oracle supports OpenJDK. They even hope to ditch their flavor of Java in favor of the open one. What's the fuss?

161 points by g1n016399 11y ago

The important thing is that Java should not be allowed to be owned and trolled upon by companies. Java belongs to the community that developed it collectively, not to a single corporation that paid bucks to purchase it from Sun. And Java IS open source. Lets not allow Oracle to monopolize and troll the API spec. If we allow that to happen, it will open a floodgates of patent trolls across the United States and the victims could be innocent startups who have just begun struggling and innovating in the market.

tajen 11y ago
I agree with you for the situations you quote, however the spirit of the law is here to prevent incompatible copycats to fork off. If Microsoft launched their own version of Java with a tiny number of incompatibilities, this law could be reused against them.
icebraining 11y ago
"Lets not allow" sounds nice, but how do you actually expect us to accomplish this? After all, Oracle does own most of the code in OpenJDK, and even the contributions must be accompanied by a signed agreement giving them joint ownership of the copyright.
- rms_returns 11y ago
  > how do you actually expect us to accomplish this? As a citizen, you can vote for legislators and senators who are of sane-mind and who understand technology enough to understand the hilarity of this situation. After all, you can read everything about them online when a candidate stands for an election, its not like some developing/third-world country where information and media are controlled.
- kuschku 11y ago
  > even the contributions must be accompanied by a signed agreement giving them joint ownership of the copyright. Well, we could just all move to Germany, where ownership over copyright can never be signed away, and then fork Java.

defenestration 11y ago

Some quotes to quickly understand what is going on. Andreas Gal, Former CTO of Mozilla, wrote yesterday: "... a curious event got my attention: A commit appeared in the Android code base that indicates that Google is abandoning its own re-implementation of Java in favor of Oracle’s original Java implementation. I’ll try to explain why I think this is a huge change and will have far-reaching implications for Android and the Android ecosystem." Source: http://andreasgal.com/2016/01/05/oracle-sinks-its-claws-into-android/ http://andreasgal.com/2016/01/05/oracle-sinks-its-claws-into... Bradley M. Kuhn, in charge with the task of enforcing the GPL for Linux, wrote today: "Thus, my conclusion about this situation is quite different than the pundits and link-bait news articles. I speculate that Google weighed a technical decision against its own copyleft compliance processes, and determined that Google would succeed in its compliance efforts on Android, and thus won't face compliance problems, and can therefore easily benefit technically from the better code. However, for those many downstream redistributors of Android who fail at license compliance already, the ironic outcome is that you may finally find out how friendly and reasonable Conservancy's Linux GPL enforcement truly is, once you compare it with GPL enforcement from a company like Oracle, who holds avarice, not software freedom, as its primary moral principle." Source: http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2016/01/05/jdk-in-android.html http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2016/01/05/jdk-in-android.html

chei0aiV 11y ago
He isn't going to be able to enforce the GPL for Linux much longer as SFC needs about 1800 supporters to be able to continue their eminently reasonable copyleft compliance work. https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.html https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/principles.htm...

azakai 11y ago

Why is there "Mozilla" in the hn title here, but not in the article's title? (nor the article body, except for a small aside about the MPL license, in parentheses)

bipin_nag 11y ago
Its a response to earlier article http://andreasgal.com/2016/01/05/oracle-sinks-its-claws-into-android/ http://andreasgal.com/2016/01/05/oracle-sinks-its-claws-into... by former Mozilla CTO.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- auvrw 11y ago
  heh, Swing is part of the android api now.
  - izacus 11y ago
    Which is just one of the total lies written in that article (Swing is not and will not be part of Android API which you can easily check in commits). Sadly Andreas doesn't really understand what he was writing about :/
- rockdoe 11y ago
  "former" being a key word. Again, no idea why "Mozilla" is in the title here. They're not involved at all.
pcwalton 11y ago
> Why is there "Mozilla" in the hn title here, but not in the article's title? (nor the article body, except for a small aside about the MPL license, in parentheses) Yeah, this seems to be a clear case of an editorialized article title. :(

pron 11y ago

This entire thing may be confusing to a lot of people, as many are already confused by what the entire Android court case was about. The confusion is not accidental. Google's very extensive PR machine has put in a lot of resources to make sure people are confused (what Oracle puts into lawyers, Google puts into PR). But just to lay down a few facts: Since 2006/7, Java has been available under two licenses: commercial and open-source. The commercial license allows free implementation of the Java APIs and has a full patent grant, but requires conformance with the Java TCK (Technology Compatibility Kit) and requires payment if used in mobile devices (this was Java's main revenue stream for a long time). It is also possible to license the JDK source from Oracle under the commercial license for a fee. The same JDK is also released under the GPL. This license is completely free and unencumbered (the GPL itself prohibits any restrictions). It does not require compatibility (unless you want to call the result "Java"), and has no field of use restrictions. It also has a full (implicit) patent grant. As this article notes, OpenJDK's copyleft is not viral either (certainly not more than Linux): applications and libraries running on top of it are unaffected due to the "classpath exception". You can do whatever you like with Java when you use it under the terms of its open-source license: use the implementation, use just the APIs and implement it yourself, use the whole thing or just small portion, pass the TCK, not pass the TCK, fork it or not. You are even allowed to use it to implement .NET. Google has had both of these options for licensing Java (at least since May 2007, but that was still before Android was released). Until very recently, Google chose neither. They couldn't reach an agreement with Sun on the fee for the first license, and didn't like the second (possibly because they feared that phone manufacturers would reject a GPL runtime, classpath exception or no). Instead, they chose to argue in court that the APIs are not Oracle's to license[1]. What has changed now? Perhaps Google realized that given Android's success, phone vendors would swallow whatever license Google gives them. In any event this is a win for everyone: Google wins because they will need to spend less resources on maintaining Android, Oracle wins because Java will now be on Android, and Android and Java developers win because they'll have a better runtime and greater compatibility. This is contingent, however, on Google not forking OpenJDK too much beyond compatibility; the license does allow them to do so. Yes, the mainline OpenJDK project is steered by the JCP (Google, Intel, Twitter, and IBM are all members) and Oracle does have veto power, but that is just the project governance. Anyone is free to fork OpenJDK, as long as they don't call the result Java (unless they fork and choose to pass the TCK). The situation is no different from other large open-source projects. [1]: I have no opinion on whether or not Google's actions were legally justified (I do have an opinion about their ethics), but I do know that unlike Google's PR line, the ruling has little or no effect on the industry. Google's actions with Java's APIs were quite different from any other API implementation that I know of. Also, the ruling does not apply to web APIs. See discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10811011 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10811011.

throwaway_forcl 11y ago

I'm not sure how common knowledge this is, but Oracle is quietly going after any company of any significant size which uses Java in their software at all. It's not just the embedded stuff either; simply using Java in enterprise software is enough to bring them running with their team of lawyers threatening a lawsuit. These suits are being settled at large sums without raising any external indication that this is going on. It's not the big guys or the startups that have to worry, it's the mid-sized companies that know a long, protracted lawsuit with Oracle will not end well for them.

pron 11y ago
That is completely false.
dlandis 11y ago
No, I don't think this is "common knowledge" at all. Can you site any source whatsoever for this or reference a concurring post somewhere?
pjmlp 11y ago
Both Sun and Oracle have zero issues with companies that follow the Java license. There are plenty of happy JVM vendors to choose that haven't had any problem to comply with the license: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machines Microsoft with its J++ fork and Google with Android Java have no else but themselves to blame. But apparently Google gets a free pass while Microsoft not, because "hey it's Google and they are sooo cool".
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- icebraining 11y ago
  I don't disagree with your rebuttal of GP's post, that said, Google with Android Java have no else but themselves to blame. That argument is equivalent to "well, you should just have not left your door unlocked". Just because Google could have used OpenJDK and thus avoid the lawsuit doesn't mean they should have to do so. And Microsoft's case is completely different, as they did get a license from Sun, and preceded to deliberately violate it, with the intention (as we know from the internal emails and documents) of killing Java.

dingo_bat 11y ago

All these complex licences (GPL2, GPL3, LGPL, Least GPL, etc) do nothing except create confusion about which license to use. I have found a simple solution that allows me to focus on my work and not on the legalese; I just use the MIT license.

timonovici 11y ago
If you've ever read some ToA, or EULA, you won't find GPL that bad regarding the language and length. Also, simplified/explained versions exists, which should make it more digestible. As the author of the article said, it's a tool, and you may or may not use it. Don't downplay the need for a copyleft licence (which a cool hack around copyright, if you ask me): some people use is from a philosophical reason, and some - as the basis for their entire business model.
- mixologic 11y ago
  Reading the GPL at length, it seems as though it were written as if the only build process were C, and the only way to run software was on a single computer. The GPL is unclear when it comes to how it applies to something as complex as a content management system that could be deployed and running as a single service across multiple servers. The language it uses (linking, distribution, even 'code' itself) is ambiguous. And apparently the only clear way to ensure that you are in compliance with it is a shakedown from the Software Freedom Conservancy to grant you permission to use it in ways it was never written to handle. The principles of copyleft are tremendously valuable, I just wish we had a modern license that reflected the reality of the modern internet, and modern software.
  - yrro 11y ago
    Like GPL3 or AGPL?
    - anon1385 11y ago
      A lot of GPL advocates don't like the AGPL. Presumably because they make a living from proprietary web apps that use GPL'd code.

guelo 11y ago

It's weird how uncommon the knowledge that Google lost the lawsuit is. They lost it in appeal at the Federal Circuit. There is a remaining "fair use" decision from the lower courts but Google doesn't have much hope there. Google's current approach using Harmony's clean-room API implementation has been basically deemed illegal. Google will likely have to pay millions if not billions to Oracle for copyright infringement. And they will continue to be infringing as long as they are distributing their current Android systems. P.S. The law of the land is now that when you create an API it is copyrighted.

curt15 11y ago
>P.S. The law of the land is now that when you create an API it is copyrighted. No, it's just the law of the Federal Circuit and only when interpreting 9th circuit law. Their decision is not binding precedent on any of the usual circuits, and their usual domain is patent law, not copyright law.
- bitwize 11y ago
  No. The Federal Circuit has subject matter jurisdiction, not geographic jurisdiction. Their decisions are binding precedent throughout the United States.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    They don't have subject matter jurisdiction over copyright. Their decision on a copyright case isn't binding in other circuits.
    - josaka 11y ago
      I think that is correct. This case is a little misleading because there were both patent and copyright claims at the district court level. As a result of the patent claims, the Federal Circuit had jurisdiction over the entire case, even though the copyright claims were to be adjudicated under 9th Circuit precedent. If they had only brought copyright claims, this appeal would have been heard at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

kevingadd 11y ago

I find it hard to believe that the author of this post didn't know better than to refer to Andreas as a "pundit". I have my many disagreements with him personally but it's ridiculous to treat him as a tech media talking head when his opinions on the subject are clearly based on multiple years shipping an Android-derived operating system on phones. Not to mention Firefox for Android, which I think he had some involvement with as well. The post as a whole seems to be intended to frame disagreement with Mr. Kuhn's PoV as coming from uninformed rabble and media talking heads. The post itself is well-written and thoughtfully argued, so it's disappointing that it's undermined by the author's choice of tone. If anyone is qualified to share their detailed thoughts on the OpenJDK/Android move, former/current officers of Mozilla are high on that list.

izacus 11y ago
Unfortunately Andreas' post was very misinformed and full of statements that simply weren't true (like the quip about Swing for example) which kinda supports the scepticism. I'm not sure if Andreas really knew what he was writing about in detail.
rockdoe 11y ago
Gal's post is full of mistakes, so he deserves all the criticism.
incepted 11y ago
Andreas' post is filled with incorrect statements, such as: > Swing will now sit on every Android phone, using up resources. It's pretty worrying that the former Mozilla CTO seems to be so uninformed about a topic or -- worse -- decided to write an article on a topic without even spending a few minutes researching it and understanding the implications. It doesn't reflect well on Mozilla either that they hired someone who seems to be so out of his depth on core matters to Mozilla's business.
- throwaway160106 11y ago
  Well, that is the same company that put Gary "JavaScript rendering engine" Kovacs at the helm as CEO.

wbillingsley 11y ago

A bit undermined by speculation like "we should expect Oracle to..." and "despite Oracle's expected nastiness" being so central to the analysis. If we're talking speculation, then I'm guessing the next piece of news might be an announcement that Google is buying Java and Oracle's Java team. The line of thinking goes... - Despite currently looking like losing a lawsuit, Google has just cosied closer to Oracle's version of Java. (Something's afoot...) - Despite currently looking like winning a lawsuit, and Java 8 being very well received, Oracle's rumoured to have just let its Java evangelists go, and to be less interested in Java than it used to be. (They look willing to sell...) - JavaOne was apparently a bit light on announcements (Could something other than just work on Java 9 be distracting them and making them put some plans on hold for a mo...) - Having a litigious competitor own a key piece of Android is surely a pain point for Google that gets more painful as Android keeps storming ahead. Buying it would make that pain go away. - Google's looking at possibly having to pay some money in the lawsuit, and will likely want to get something for it - Oracle's looking at an uncertain return from the lawsuit, hasn't extracted that much revenue from Java itself, and might just be happy to take some cash for someone else to be custodian of it from here on

kuschku 11y ago
On the other hand, a lot of companies using Java (including SIEMENS, SAP, etc) might oppose such a move from Google, and even end up buying Oracles Java team themselves. Similar to how people expected Microsoft or Google to buy here maps, and then a bunch of car manufacturers bought it (due to wanting to have an open alternative usable in their cars, without relying on an oligopol)

po1nter 11y ago

I'm wondering why doesn't Google ditch Java entirely and create something like XobotOS[1]. I know it wouldn't be a popular move but at least the devs will get a decent language to use (C#) and users will have a better performing OS[2] [1]: https://github.com/xamarin/XobotOS https://github.com/xamarin/XobotOS [2]: https://blog.xamarin.com/android-in-c-sharp/ https://blog.xamarin.com/android-in-c-sharp/

giancarlostoro 11y ago
I've wondered the same. Apple did a good move with Swift. Not sure why Google doesn't invest in their own language. Would be really nice to see a full on native and new language for Android by Google.
- dingo_bat 11y ago
  I'm wondering why this is downvoted. I would love to have an official Android language that is better suited to mobile than Java. Instead of hacking away at the JVM (or cloning it) to make it work properly on CPU/memory/power-limited devices.
  - nitrogen 11y ago
    Java (as J2ME) has been running on mobile devices for more than a decade with ample performance.
    - dingo_bat 11y ago
      J2ME never had near enough functionality for the apps to do anything very interesting. I do not recall a single J2ME app apart from Opera Mini which was worth using. All the good (by the standards of that time) apps were non-J2ME, at least on Symbian and Windows Mobile. So even though it was fast enough, I wouldn't compare it to Java as it exists for Android now.
      - nitrogen 11y ago

mtgx 11y ago

> Eventually, (slowly but surely) GPL enforcement will adjudicate the widespread problem of poor Linux license compliance — one way or the other So when is that going to happen? The Linux Foundation just stopped funding the Software Freedom Conservancy, in a concerted effort with others to kill it and any GPL enforcement.

chei0aiV 11y ago
When you, everyone else in this thread and all your friends become supporters of the Software Freedom Conservancy, then they will have enough funding to continue GPL compliance efforts. Right now they are about 50 supporters below the level needed to continue basic services (but do no compliance activities). They need a few thousand more supporters to keep up with GPL compliance activities. http://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ http://sfconservancy.org/supporter/

invalidname 11y ago

Another response to the article with a somewhat different angle available here: https://www.codenameone.com/blog/debating-brendan-eich-over-android-openjdk-move.html https://www.codenameone.com/blog/debating-brendan-eich-over-...

baroa 11y ago

So Oracle supports OpenJDK. They even hope to ditch their flavor of Java in favor of the open one. What's the fuss?