4 ms·

I agree. Should we pretend that companies don't act selfishly? Oracle wanted Java more open when it worked better for them, now it doesn't. They are allowed

I agree. Should we pretend that companies don't act selfishly? Oracle wanted Java more open when it worked better for them, now it doesn't. They are allowed to change their minds, aren't they? I still hope Google wins though.

bad_user 16y ago
Should we pretend that companies don't act selfishly? As I've said in another comment, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like real people. For example, corporations can exercise human rights. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, and it would be stupid to not hold them to the same standards as real people. I don't know were this trend is coming from (that companies shouldn't be accountable for anything other than making money) but it doesn't do any good.
- scott_s 16y ago
  But being a hypocrite is not a crime. The original question was: what legal relevance does that have? I have the same question, although I suspect the answer is "none." Although anything that makes Oracle look bad might help Google by biasing a judge, even if only a little.
  - sprout 16y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppal Hypocrisy isn't a crime, but it can invalidate a claim if you publicly state one interpretation of law and later state another.
    - chc 16y ago
      IANAL, but I'm pretty sure estoppel only applies to legal facts and promises. Merely stating that you think things should be a certain way and then changing your mind when something else would be more beneficial is not grounds for estoppel. Unless Oracle successfully sued for openness or told somebody that it would not do this, I don't see how they could be estopped.
  - meta 16y ago
    I gathered it was related to the Unclean Hands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_hands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_hands) claim - but I am just a coder. Edit: Because "The defendant has the burden of proof" that was included as (part of?) the proof they would need to provide
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- doki_pen 16y ago
  I'll make no distinction. People act selfishly too, and there is no law against it. I might vote against welfare, then fall on hard times and plea for welfare. Am I breaking the law? Should the welfare office say "Well, sorry, you used to be against welfare so we can't grant your request?"
- protomyth 16y ago
  True as far as you went, but most people are not charged with a fiduciary responsibility to other people. This does tend to take some wiggle room out of corporate behavior, particularly where shareholder lawsuits are a possibility.
bmelton 16y ago
Well, that's a question I'd loved to see answered. Simply put, I don't know if you can be 'more open source', and then simply change your mind on such a thing. Perhaps this situation isn't really reflective of what I'm talking about, but I don't think that you can un-GPL code that's already been opened that way or, even if you can, I don't think you can restrict those who are using the version you originally licensed as GPL in any way other than how you licensed it. It's a complicated scenario, for sure, but I'd like to hear whether or not the sort of bait-and-switch I described is something that can be done, or if there are any precedents either way.
- recoiledsnake 16y ago
  It's not about un-GPLing anything. The GPLed code was given a patent grant _only_ if it was compatible with existing Java. And the code to test the compatibility(TCK) was never GPL'ed and had restrictions. Engadget has good breakdown: Google uses a subset of the Apache Harmony Java implementation in Android. Sun open-sourced Java Standard Edition under the GPL in 2006 and 2007, but didn't include a patent or copyright license with the code. In order to get that license, developers have to demonstrate compatibility with the Java specification. The only way to demonstrate compatibility with the Java specification is to use Sun's Technology Compatibility Kit, or TCK, and Sun / Oracle and Apache have been bickering about the license for the Java TCK, or JCK, for years. (That's putting it lightly, actually. It's been more like a war.) The only license Sun ever offered Apache for the JCK included significant "field of use" restrictions, including a restriction on mobile phones. Because of these restrictions, Apache's never taken a JCK license to test Harmony. Oracle used to be on Apache's side in demanding Sun loosen up the JCK licensing restrictions, but that changed as soon as it bought Sun out. Google thinks this is very bad, and that Oracle and Sun are just big bullies who don't want Java to be open, even though being open is super amazing. That's where Google stops, right at the part where unchecked corporate greed threatens to destroy a open-source project and your heart swells with sympathy. It's a good place to stop! But the logical and unstated endpoint to this narrative isn't quite as good: Because Apache doesn't have a license to test Harmony with the JCK, it doesn't have a license for Sun's Java patents and copyrights either. Part of the reason Apache wants a JCK license is to assure its users they have the necessary IP rights. Google knew all this and used parts of Harmony in Android anyway.

bad_user 16y ago

Should we pretend that companies don't act selfishly? As I've said in another comment, corporations are recognized by the law to have rights and responsibilities like real people. For example, corporations can exercise human rights. Corporations can even be convicted of criminal offences, and it would be stupid to not hold them to the same standards as real people. I don't know were this trend is coming from (that companies shouldn't be accountable for anything other than making money) but it doesn't do any good.

scott_s 16y ago
But being a hypocrite is not a crime. The original question was: what legal relevance does that have? I have the same question, although I suspect the answer is "none." Although anything that makes Oracle look bad might help Google by biasing a judge, even if only a little.
- sprout 16y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppal Hypocrisy isn't a crime, but it can invalidate a claim if you publicly state one interpretation of law and later state another.
  - chc 16y ago
    IANAL, but I'm pretty sure estoppel only applies to legal facts and promises. Merely stating that you think things should be a certain way and then changing your mind when something else would be more beneficial is not grounds for estoppel. Unless Oracle successfully sued for openness or told somebody that it would not do this, I don't see how they could be estopped.
- meta 16y ago
  I gathered it was related to the Unclean Hands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_hands http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_hands) claim - but I am just a coder. Edit: Because "The defendant has the burden of proof" that was included as (part of?) the proof they would need to provide
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
doki_pen 16y ago
I'll make no distinction. People act selfishly too, and there is no law against it. I might vote against welfare, then fall on hard times and plea for welfare. Am I breaking the law? Should the welfare office say "Well, sorry, you used to be against welfare so we can't grant your request?"
protomyth 16y ago
True as far as you went, but most people are not charged with a fiduciary responsibility to other people. This does tend to take some wiggle room out of corporate behavior, particularly where shareholder lawsuits are a possibility.

bmelton 16y ago

Well, that's a question I'd loved to see answered. Simply put, I don't know if you can be 'more open source', and then simply change your mind on such a thing. Perhaps this situation isn't really reflective of what I'm talking about, but I don't think that you can un-GPL code that's already been opened that way or, even if you can, I don't think you can restrict those who are using the version you originally licensed as GPL in any way other than how you licensed it. It's a complicated scenario, for sure, but I'd like to hear whether or not the sort of bait-and-switch I described is something that can be done, or if there are any precedents either way.

recoiledsnake 16y ago
It's not about un-GPLing anything. The GPLed code was given a patent grant _only_ if it was compatible with existing Java. And the code to test the compatibility(TCK) was never GPL'ed and had restrictions. Engadget has good breakdown: Google uses a subset of the Apache Harmony Java implementation in Android. Sun open-sourced Java Standard Edition under the GPL in 2006 and 2007, but didn't include a patent or copyright license with the code. In order to get that license, developers have to demonstrate compatibility with the Java specification. The only way to demonstrate compatibility with the Java specification is to use Sun's Technology Compatibility Kit, or TCK, and Sun / Oracle and Apache have been bickering about the license for the Java TCK, or JCK, for years. (That's putting it lightly, actually. It's been more like a war.) The only license Sun ever offered Apache for the JCK included significant "field of use" restrictions, including a restriction on mobile phones. Because of these restrictions, Apache's never taken a JCK license to test Harmony. Oracle used to be on Apache's side in demanding Sun loosen up the JCK licensing restrictions, but that changed as soon as it bought Sun out. Google thinks this is very bad, and that Oracle and Sun are just big bullies who don't want Java to be open, even though being open is super amazing. That's where Google stops, right at the part where unchecked corporate greed threatens to destroy a open-source project and your heart swells with sympathy. It's a good place to stop! But the logical and unstated endpoint to this narrative isn't quite as good: Because Apache doesn't have a license to test Harmony with the JCK, it doesn't have a license for Sun's Java patents and copyrights either. Part of the reason Apache wants a JCK license is to assure its users they have the necessary IP rights. Google knew all this and used parts of Harmony in Android anyway.