3 ms·

But isnt that based on Java again?

meddlepal 9y ago
No? It runs on the JVM and Kotlin/JVM links the Java standard library as part of its class path and compiler emits JVM bytecode, but that's not the issue here. I feel like people do not understand what this lawsuit is about. There's also a lot of technical people here reading the decision and making tech-minded assumptions about the business strategy. A far simpler solution than reconstructing the entire ecosystem would be to just switch off Dalvik VM and use the JVM. The problem has nothing to do with using the Java API. It has everything to do with copying the OracleJDK API and implementation then building a secondary non-compliant JVM to run it. The OracleJDK (which is different from the OpenJDK) is not licensed in a way that allows copying. I recommend folks read https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/8213/is-it-legal-to-rewrite-a-java-openjdk-library-into-another-programming-languag/8224#8224 https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/8213/is-it-legal-to-... for a little background. In short Google fucked up big time.
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  >The problem has nothing to do with using the Java API. It has everything to do with copying the OracleJDK API and implementation then building a secondary non-compliant JVM to run it. The OracleJDK (which is different from the OpenJDK) is not licensed in a way that allows copying. Um, no. The case has solely to do with the copyright of the SSO of 37 Java API's that Google used. This has nothing to do with their VM. >In short Google fucked up big time. On the contrary, the CAFC fucked up big time for allowing API interfaces to be copyrighted.
  - meddlepal 9y ago
    You read one part of a sentence and then ignored the other part. "It has everything to do with copying the OracleJDK API and implementation"
    - bitmapbrother 9y ago
      Actually, both parts were incorrect. This has nothing to do with implementation whatsoever. This copyright case is based solely on the SSO of 37 Java API interfaces and nothing else.

No? It runs on the JVM and Kotlin/JVM links the Java standard library as part of its class path and compiler emits JVM bytecode, but that's not the issue here. I feel like people do not understand what this lawsuit is about. There's also a lot of technical people here reading the decision and making tech-minded assumptions about the business strategy. A far simpler solution than reconstructing the entire ecosystem would be to just switch off Dalvik VM and use the JVM. The problem has nothing to do with using the Java API. It has everything to do with copying the OracleJDK API and implementation then building a secondary non-compliant JVM to run it. The OracleJDK (which is different from the OpenJDK) is not licensed in a way that allows copying. I recommend folks read https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/8213/is-it-legal-to-rewrite-a-java-openjdk-library-into-another-programming-languag/8224#8224 https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/8213/is-it-legal-to-... for a little background. In short Google fucked up big time.

bitmapbrother 9y ago
>The problem has nothing to do with using the Java API. It has everything to do with copying the OracleJDK API and implementation then building a secondary non-compliant JVM to run it. The OracleJDK (which is different from the OpenJDK) is not licensed in a way that allows copying. Um, no. The case has solely to do with the copyright of the SSO of 37 Java API's that Google used. This has nothing to do with their VM. >In short Google fucked up big time. On the contrary, the CAFC fucked up big time for allowing API interfaces to be copyrighted.
- meddlepal 9y ago
  You read one part of a sentence and then ignored the other part. "It has everything to do with copying the OracleJDK API and implementation"
  - bitmapbrother 9y ago
    Actually, both parts were incorrect. This has nothing to do with implementation whatsoever. This copyright case is based solely on the SSO of 37 Java API interfaces and nothing else.