5 ms·

Or, say, an S3 compatibility layer for your cloud storage system: https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/iaas/Content/Object/Tasks/s3compatibleapi.htm https://docs.cloud

Or, say, an S3 compatibility layer for your cloud storage system: https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/iaas/Content/Object/Tasks/s3compatibleapi.htm https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/iaas/Content/Object/Tasks/s3co... I'm not surprised by Oracle's hypocrisy. I'm surprised anyone with a soul and functioning sense of right and wrong still works there.

colejohnson66 8y ago
If Oracle succeeds and Amazon proceeds to sue Oracle for that, that would be some sweet schadenfreude. Granted, I’d still be pissed at the decision, but to have Oracle’s tactics used back at them would feel really nice.
- PetahNZ 8y ago
  Oracle would just sue them back for Aurora's MySQL compatibility. If not sue them first.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    If anyone owns the base copyright to SQL, it's IBM.
  - jhall1468 8y ago
    They'd lose for the very same reason that Android is within the confines of the law via the Android Runtime. Dalvik violated the Java license, Android Runtime isn't. Aurora's compatibility layer isn't violating the MySQL license either.
    - wtallis 8y ago
      > Dalvik violated the Java license, Android Runtime isn't. Can you elaborate on this point? What license for what copyrightable work did Dalvik violate, and why does Android Runtime not violate that same copyright license?
      - jhall1468 8y ago
        The issue at hand was licensing. In the Android Runtime, Google is linking to the OpenJDK libraries rather than using it's "reverse engineered" runtime. OpenJDK is GPL with a classpath exception, which Google is utilizing. The caveat for Google is any changes to the OpenJDK itself has to be upstreamed. But the Android Runtime itself doesn't have to be GPL due to the classpath exception. In all honesty, this is how they should have done it in the first place.
        wtallis 8y ago
        That sounds more like an allegation that Dalvik was lacking a required license from Oracle, not that it was violating any existing license.
        jhall1468 8y ago
        It was violating the open source license, thus required a commercial license, which it didn't have, which in turn makes this copyright infringement. At least that's the position of the courts so far.
jf 8y ago
I recently heard of an satanist who got a job at Oracle. The satanist would say he worked for the devil

colejohnson66 8y ago

If Oracle succeeds and Amazon proceeds to sue Oracle for that, that would be some sweet schadenfreude. Granted, I’d still be pissed at the decision, but to have Oracle’s tactics used back at them would feel really nice.

PetahNZ 8y ago
Oracle would just sue them back for Aurora's MySQL compatibility. If not sue them first.
- monocasa 8y ago
  If anyone owns the base copyright to SQL, it's IBM.
- jhall1468 8y ago
  They'd lose for the very same reason that Android is within the confines of the law via the Android Runtime. Dalvik violated the Java license, Android Runtime isn't. Aurora's compatibility layer isn't violating the MySQL license either.
  - wtallis 8y ago
    > Dalvik violated the Java license, Android Runtime isn't. Can you elaborate on this point? What license for what copyrightable work did Dalvik violate, and why does Android Runtime not violate that same copyright license?
    - jhall1468 8y ago
      The issue at hand was licensing. In the Android Runtime, Google is linking to the OpenJDK libraries rather than using it's "reverse engineered" runtime. OpenJDK is GPL with a classpath exception, which Google is utilizing. The caveat for Google is any changes to the OpenJDK itself has to be upstreamed. But the Android Runtime itself doesn't have to be GPL due to the classpath exception. In all honesty, this is how they should have done it in the first place.
      - wtallis 8y ago
        That sounds more like an allegation that Dalvik was lacking a required license from Oracle, not that it was violating any existing license.
        jhall1468 8y ago
        It was violating the open source license, thus required a commercial license, which it didn't have, which in turn makes this copyright infringement. At least that's the position of the courts so far.

jf 8y ago

I recently heard of an satanist who got a job at Oracle. The satanist would say he worked for the devil