3 ms·

I doubt that there are that many people that would allow Oracle tech to enter into a beloved language like Ruby, or the ecosystem.

by onli 8y ago

alberth 8y ago
Why not? Graal is EPL, GPLv2, LGPL licensed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16862130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16862130
- nirvdrum 8y ago
  FYI, what you've linked to is a breakdown for the licenses of various projects comprising GraalVM. The licenses you listed only apply apply to TruffleRuby. Having said that, Graal and its related projects are all open source, with a license listing available in its README: https://github.com/oracle/graal/blob/master/README.md https://github.com/oracle/graal/blob/master/README.md
- onli 8y ago
  Because Oracle is Oracle, the most evil company in tech, the one most blatantly greedy. Look at what they pulled with Google. Oracle would wait till the tech usage grows and then use patents and API copyrights or whatever else they invent out of thin air to go after the players using its tech. The free license of Graal does not protect you from that, GPL2 specifically not. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Google abused Sun, took advantage that they were in a critical financial situation not able to sue, and when they crashed, did not move a finger to rescue the company assets. Now Android has Google's own J++, limiting what kind of Java libraries are portable to the platform. At the same time, some OEMs are adopting Android instead of Embedded Java, thus increasing the fragmentation about what Java libraries are actually portable. Google just though they could let Sun close doors and get away with how they created their own J++.
    - onli 8y ago
      That's Oracle propaganda. Sun was perfectly happy with Google using Java and the free entry into the mobile market they got from that. See https://www.zdnet.com/article/a-google-android-and-java-history-lesson/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/a-google-android-and-java-hist..., https://www.zdnet.com/article/sun-ceo-explicitly-endorsed-javas-use-in-android-what-do-you-say-now-oracle/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/sun-ceo-explicitly-endorsed-ja....
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        That is Google propaganda. Sun did what they could to save their face. "Triangulation 245: James Gosling" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be&t=57m42s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be... Also doesn't change the fact that even with Android 8.1, I as Java developer cannot take a random jar from Maven Central and be certain it won't crash and burn on Android, regardless of the version.
        onli 8y ago
        Good link. But I don't see how you can tolerate that contradiction. Either you agree with Oracle that the Java APIs were copyrighted and Google should not have been allowed to reconstruct them. Or you worry about fragmentation coming from an incompatible Java implementation. Doing both is nonsensical.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        What contradiction? Google should have paid Sun instead of playing a Microsoft's move fostering Sun's downfall, period. And in doing so, Android would have been JavaSE compliant plus whatever additional libraries they would think to drop on top of it.
        onli 8y ago
        How do you come to the idea that having more Java devices available, even if not 100% compatible, would have in any way caused harm to Sun? And then even that much that it killed the company? On top of that, I don't see for what google would have had an obligation to pay. Contradiction: Google broke some imaginary copyright by re-implementing APIs, but Google is bad because the re-implementation was not 100% equal to the original causing fragmentation. Either the fragmentation was harmful, then the API copyright was the problem. Or the API copyright violation was the problem, then fragmentation was the explicit goal and Google's try to minimize it the problem. Both can't be true at the same time outside lawyer lala land.
mixedCase 8y ago
Where you're seeing Oracle tech I see free software licensed under the LGPL. There's no way that if TruffleRuby becomes well and truly popular and Oracle decides to... be Oracle, no other company would pick up the banner. Ruby is just too popular for that not to happen.
ksec 8y ago
Java, or OpenJDK is fully open sourced and GPL. I asked multiple times what are the risk in using it. And no one ever had an answer for it. If the communities doesn't like where things are going, they could fork the whole thing and call it something else, like Coffee.

I doubt that there are that many people that would allow Oracle tech to enter into a beloved language like Ruby, or the ecosystem.

by onli 8y ago

I doubt that there are that many people that would allow Oracle tech to enter into a beloved language like Ruby, or the ecosystem.

alberth 8y ago

Why not? Graal is EPL, GPLv2, LGPL licensed. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16862130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16862130

nirvdrum 8y ago
FYI, what you've linked to is a breakdown for the licenses of various projects comprising GraalVM. The licenses you listed only apply apply to TruffleRuby. Having said that, Graal and its related projects are all open source, with a license listing available in its README: https://github.com/oracle/graal/blob/master/README.md https://github.com/oracle/graal/blob/master/README.md
onli 8y ago
Because Oracle is Oracle, the most evil company in tech, the one most blatantly greedy. Look at what they pulled with Google. Oracle would wait till the tech usage grows and then use patents and API copyrights or whatever else they invent out of thin air to go after the players using its tech. The free license of Graal does not protect you from that, GPL2 specifically not. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.en.html.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Google abused Sun, took advantage that they were in a critical financial situation not able to sue, and when they crashed, did not move a finger to rescue the company assets. Now Android has Google's own J++, limiting what kind of Java libraries are portable to the platform. At the same time, some OEMs are adopting Android instead of Embedded Java, thus increasing the fragmentation about what Java libraries are actually portable. Google just though they could let Sun close doors and get away with how they created their own J++.
  - onli 8y ago
    That's Oracle propaganda. Sun was perfectly happy with Google using Java and the free entry into the mobile market they got from that. See https://www.zdnet.com/article/a-google-android-and-java-history-lesson/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/a-google-android-and-java-hist..., https://www.zdnet.com/article/sun-ceo-explicitly-endorsed-javas-use-in-android-what-do-you-say-now-oracle/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/sun-ceo-explicitly-endorsed-ja....
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      That is Google propaganda. Sun did what they could to save their face. "Triangulation 245: James Gosling" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be&t=57m42s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYw3X4RZv6Y&feature=youtu.be... Also doesn't change the fact that even with Android 8.1, I as Java developer cannot take a random jar from Maven Central and be certain it won't crash and burn on Android, regardless of the version.
      - onli 8y ago
        Good link. But I don't see how you can tolerate that contradiction. Either you agree with Oracle that the Java APIs were copyrighted and Google should not have been allowed to reconstruct them. Or you worry about fragmentation coming from an incompatible Java implementation. Doing both is nonsensical.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        What contradiction? Google should have paid Sun instead of playing a Microsoft's move fostering Sun's downfall, period. And in doing so, Android would have been JavaSE compliant plus whatever additional libraries they would think to drop on top of it.
        onli 8y ago
        How do you come to the idea that having more Java devices available, even if not 100% compatible, would have in any way caused harm to Sun? And then even that much that it killed the company? On top of that, I don't see for what google would have had an obligation to pay. Contradiction: Google broke some imaginary copyright by re-implementing APIs, but Google is bad because the re-implementation was not 100% equal to the original causing fragmentation. Either the fragmentation was harmful, then the API copyright was the problem. Or the API copyright violation was the problem, then fragmentation was the explicit goal and Google's try to minimize it the problem. Both can't be true at the same time outside lawyer lala land.

mixedCase 8y ago

Where you're seeing Oracle tech I see free software licensed under the LGPL. There's no way that if TruffleRuby becomes well and truly popular and Oracle decides to... be Oracle, no other company would pick up the banner. Ruby is just too popular for that not to happen.

ksec 8y ago

Java, or OpenJDK is fully open sourced and GPL. I asked multiple times what are the risk in using it. And no one ever had an answer for it. If the communities doesn't like where things are going, they could fork the whole thing and call it something else, like Coffee.