3 ms·

But, and this is the big but, they did it in such a way as not to be compatible with the Oracle one.

• simias 9y ago
  I'm not sure how that's relevant, if anything since the crux of the issue seems to be the "stealing" of the API the fact that there are incompatibilities should be in Google's favour? It's a bit odd to claim that somebody stole your API while at the same time complaining that they did not steal it well enough.
  • s73v3r_ 9y ago
    "I'm not sure how that's relevant" The original license for Java said you can create your own implementation just fine, so long as it was compatible with the others (or at least the benchmark one). By not doing that, Google violated the license. "It's a bit odd to claim that somebody stole your API while at the same time complaining that they did not steal it well enough." Not if what you want to avoid is people Embracing your API, Extending it with new special bits, and Extinguishing your version.
    • icebraining 9y ago
      That's not all it said. The license had field-of-use restrictions, meaning you couldn't use your implementation for every purpose. The Apache Foundation published an open letter to Sun on that regard. And specifically, use of a J2SE implementation in mobile devices may have been forbidden.