5 ms·

Good point. If you're using Java now, its probably a good idea to start looking at migration to something not Java. And until the API lawsuit is resolved, even

Good point. If you're using Java now, its probably a good idea to start looking at migration to something not Java. And until the API lawsuit is resolved, even things like Kotlin are probably not safe. And well, if you choose Java now, you're just a fool :/ It is a footgun and the trigger is controlled by a pack of lawyers at Oracle.

pron 8y ago
The API lawsuit has absolutely nothing to do with OpenJDK. OpenJDK is licensed to anyone under an open source license. The lawsuit relates to the use of code library APIs not in accordance with any license. Because the license is clear, whatever licensing situation you may have been afraid of before, things are strictly better now. BTW, Google has used OpenJDK extensively even throughout the court case, and still does, and has even forked it internally.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  > BTW, Google has used OpenJDK extensively even throughout the court case, and still does, and has even forked it internally. But isn't that their problem? The Oracle claim is that APIs themselves are copyrighted , and need permission from Oracle to even use the APIs? It wouldn't matter of the software package was licensed. If Oracle's argument is accepted, then even invoking the APIs need a separate license outside the permission to copy JDK. I really hope the judge finds in favor of Google. APIs should absolutely not be copyrightable.. But that's the main issue. And I still stand by my assessment that Java-anything is harmful for your health. And if your company has $$$, using Java is attracting sharks.
  - pron 8y ago
    Even if APIs are copyrighted, anything that's copyrighted can be licensed, and OpenJDK, which includes the Java APIs, is licensed under an open source license (which, BTW, Google did not use in Android until recently, but have used, and still do, for their use of OpenJDK).

pron 8y ago

The API lawsuit has absolutely nothing to do with OpenJDK. OpenJDK is licensed to anyone under an open source license. The lawsuit relates to the use of code library APIs not in accordance with any license. Because the license is clear, whatever licensing situation you may have been afraid of before, things are strictly better now. BTW, Google has used OpenJDK extensively even throughout the court case, and still does, and has even forked it internally.

crankylinuxuser 8y ago
> BTW, Google has used OpenJDK extensively even throughout the court case, and still does, and has even forked it internally. But isn't that their problem? The Oracle claim is that APIs themselves are copyrighted , and need permission from Oracle to even use the APIs? It wouldn't matter of the software package was licensed. If Oracle's argument is accepted, then even invoking the APIs need a separate license outside the permission to copy JDK. I really hope the judge finds in favor of Google. APIs should absolutely not be copyrightable.. But that's the main issue. And I still stand by my assessment that Java-anything is harmful for your health. And if your company has $$$, using Java is attracting sharks.
- pron 8y ago
  Even if APIs are copyrighted, anything that's copyrighted can be licensed, and OpenJDK, which includes the Java APIs, is licensed under an open source license (which, BTW, Google did not use in Android until recently, but have used, and still do, for their use of OpenJDK).