4 ms·

> * It's not owned by Oracle So you replace one lawsuit-happy DB company with... another lawsuit-happy DB company.

• KirinDave 10y ago
  It's worth noting that Microsoft is aggressively pledging about patents, open sourcing with very clear and explicit licenses, and making industry-level promises that imply they're serious about making .NET Core an open and usable platform. It would be nicer if there was a managed langauge platform that was not tied to an entity with a history of patent litigation, but let's not lose our sense of scale here. The degree to which Oracle has betrayed our community and tried to undermine the bearable status quo of the software industry to milk the Android ecosystem is as unforgivable as anything Microsoft has done in the darkest depths of the Balmer era.
  • john_reel 10y ago
    Google uses OpenJDK now. Nothing to worry about.
    • JacobiX 10y ago
      OpenJDK remains an Oracle project and all contributors should sign the Oracle Contributor Agreement (OCA). Although, an agreement of this nature exists in some other open source communities. But I feel, hesitant to grant Oracle the following rights : - License any patents bearing on your contributions to Oracle. - Assert that you are legally entitled to grant Oracle these rights. - Oracle have full copyright ownership of all the code in that project.
      • zigzigzag 10y ago
        But all sorts of projects have such requirements, any open source project by Google does. That isn't unique or special to Oracle.
• FT_intern 10y ago
  And Google directly competes with MSFT on many more verticals
• topbanana 10y ago
  The point of the .Net foundation is that it isn't owned by Microsoft. I'm not convinced Microsoft is as lawsuit-happy as Oracle.
  • dx034 10y ago
    Currently not, but that can change with the next CEO.
    • topbanana 10y ago
      It's a moot point anyway