4 ms·

Response from Oracle to Apache on JCP

27 points by jancona 16y ago

thedeuce 16y ago
knew that was going to happen.
rbanffy 16y ago
"Oracle provides TCK licenses under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms consistent with its obligations under the JSPA" IIRC, the whole problem of the Apache folks is that this is simply not true.
- bphogan 16y ago
  It's been my experience that when someone says "reasonable" terms, in regards to a contract or license, the meaning of "reasonable" is largely skewed in their favor.
- foo13bar 16y ago
  So, what agreement did they actually offer?
  - pquerna 16y ago
    http://www.jroller.com/scolebourne/entry/sun_apache_ip_in_pictures http://www.jroller.com/scolebourne/entry/sun_apache_ip_in_pi... Is probably one of the best explanations of the situation. FOU restrictions would stop any real open source implementation.
- hga 16y ago
  And didn't Oracle agree with the latter before they bought Sun and therefore Java?
jameskilton 16y ago
Does Oracle still not realize that there's no-one in the entire FOSS community that trusts them? To Oracle: If you want to get our trust back, you need to do these two things: 1) Drop your stupid patent dick-waving against Google 2) Open source Java proper Then, and only then, will we talk.
- Lewisham 16y ago
  Yeah, that was a wonderful statement which TLDR; to "nuh-uh!" rather than any actual addressing of the issues.
- BonoboBoner 16y ago
  As much as I would love to see that happen, it wont. What is developer trust and why does Oracle care? As long as CIOs trust Oracle to run their business on Oracle products, they are fine.
  - hga 16y ago
    Hmmm, I have to wonder. E.g. when will "Javaschools" (for which I'll include MIT since it's a Python and Java school) switch to something else? Not any time soon (new curriculum development is expensive and very political), not even in the foreseeable future ... but when I started playing this game (1977) lower tier schools were teaching FORTRAN and COBOL. That situation did not last forever.
csulok 16y ago
The way I put together this whole issue is this: 1. ASF wants the java license to be a grant of patent license. 2. ASF needs this for the Apache Harmony project. 3. Google Android uses Apache Harmory. 4. Oracle sues Google because of copyright infringement in the apache harmory related codes. 5. Oracle couldn't sue Google, if Harmory had a proper TCK license with patent grant in it. Am I seeing this through correctly?
- scott_s 16y ago
  While Oracle is making copyright claims, the bigger issue is their patent claims. Oracle is claiming patent violation by Dalvik, which is Google's JVM that they developed independently. See http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101111114933605 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101111114933605
  - hga 16y ago
    Well, more like it's Google's not-a-JVM VM that they provide a JVM -> Dalvik bytecode translator. E.g. from stack based to the rather rare choice of a register based VM. Therefore no Harmony patent grant could cover Dalvik, as wmf points out elsewhere in this thread.
- wmf 16y ago
  No. First, understand that the Sun-ASF disagreement is older than Android. Second, TCK licensing doesn't matter to Android because they would never pass anyway. The issue is really about Sun promising to certify Harmony, then realizing that such certification would jeopardize the J2ME cash cow and finding a sneaky way to break their promise. (I suspect the cow has already died from other causes, but by now the parties are deeply invested in their respective positions.)
  - joelhaasnoot 16y ago
    Oracle needs to wake up and see that J2ME is dead and deader...
boredguy8 16y ago
I haven't seen such a shining example of, "This response has been vetted by legal and PR" in quite a long time.
logic 16y ago
I'm having a difficult time reading their response, as their raised middle finger aimed in the ASF's general direction appears to be obscuring the view. Disappointing.
jaaron 16y ago
I like Jim's response on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/jimjag/status/4284342641623040 http://twitter.com/#!/jimjag/status/4284342641623040

27 points by jancona 16y ago

knew that was going to happen.

"Oracle provides TCK licenses under fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms consistent with its obligations under the JSPA" IIRC, the whole problem of the Apache folks is that this is simply not true.

bphogan 16y ago
It's been my experience that when someone says "reasonable" terms, in regards to a contract or license, the meaning of "reasonable" is largely skewed in their favor.
foo13bar 16y ago
So, what agreement did they actually offer?
- pquerna 16y ago
  http://www.jroller.com/scolebourne/entry/sun_apache_ip_in_pictures http://www.jroller.com/scolebourne/entry/sun_apache_ip_in_pi... Is probably one of the best explanations of the situation. FOU restrictions would stop any real open source implementation.
hga 16y ago
And didn't Oracle agree with the latter before they bought Sun and therefore Java?

jameskilton 16y ago

Does Oracle still not realize that there's no-one in the entire FOSS community that trusts them? To Oracle: If you want to get our trust back, you need to do these two things: 1) Drop your stupid patent dick-waving against Google 2) Open source Java proper Then, and only then, will we talk.

Lewisham 16y ago
Yeah, that was a wonderful statement which TLDR; to "nuh-uh!" rather than any actual addressing of the issues.
BonoboBoner 16y ago
As much as I would love to see that happen, it wont. What is developer trust and why does Oracle care? As long as CIOs trust Oracle to run their business on Oracle products, they are fine.
- hga 16y ago
  Hmmm, I have to wonder. E.g. when will "Javaschools" (for which I'll include MIT since it's a Python and Java school) switch to something else? Not any time soon (new curriculum development is expensive and very political), not even in the foreseeable future ... but when I started playing this game (1977) lower tier schools were teaching FORTRAN and COBOL. That situation did not last forever.

csulok 16y ago

The way I put together this whole issue is this: 1. ASF wants the java license to be a grant of patent license. 2. ASF needs this for the Apache Harmony project. 3. Google Android uses Apache Harmory. 4. Oracle sues Google because of copyright infringement in the apache harmory related codes. 5. Oracle couldn't sue Google, if Harmory had a proper TCK license with patent grant in it. Am I seeing this through correctly?

scott_s 16y ago
While Oracle is making copyright claims, the bigger issue is their patent claims. Oracle is claiming patent violation by Dalvik, which is Google's JVM that they developed independently. See http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101111114933605 http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20101111114933605
- hga 16y ago
  Well, more like it's Google's not-a-JVM VM that they provide a JVM -> Dalvik bytecode translator. E.g. from stack based to the rather rare choice of a register based VM. Therefore no Harmony patent grant could cover Dalvik, as wmf points out elsewhere in this thread.
wmf 16y ago
No. First, understand that the Sun-ASF disagreement is older than Android. Second, TCK licensing doesn't matter to Android because they would never pass anyway. The issue is really about Sun promising to certify Harmony, then realizing that such certification would jeopardize the J2ME cash cow and finding a sneaky way to break their promise. (I suspect the cow has already died from other causes, but by now the parties are deeply invested in their respective positions.)
- joelhaasnoot 16y ago
  Oracle needs to wake up and see that J2ME is dead and deader...

boredguy8 16y ago

I haven't seen such a shining example of, "This response has been vetted by legal and PR" in quite a long time.

logic 16y ago

I'm having a difficult time reading their response, as their raised middle finger aimed in the ASF's general direction appears to be obscuring the view. Disappointing.

jaaron 16y ago

I like Jim's response on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/jimjag/status/4284342641623040 http://twitter.com/#!/jimjag/status/4284342641623040