5 ms·

If I'm understanding your argument, if Google independently developed a programming language, and then they implemented a compatibility layer that accepted Java

If I'm understanding your argument, if Google independently developed a programming language, and then they implemented a compatibility layer that accepted Java bytecode invoking Java APIs and translated it in realtime to their not-Java programming language, then this would be okay? How would such a programming language be detectably different from being an implementation of Java?

treis 6y ago
>If I'm understanding your argument, if Google independently developed a programming language, and then they implemented a compatibility layer that accepted Java bytecode invoking Java APIs and translated it in realtime to their not-Java programming language, then this would be okay? Yes >How would such a programming language be detectably different from being an implementation of Java? It would have it's own unique API. As an example, Ruby can run on the JVM via JRuby and it's clear that Ruby is a different language than Java.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  This doesnt make sence - you jyst replaced the textual API used at compiletime with a binary API used at runtime. Its literally same difference.
  - treis 6y ago
    They're clearly different. In this example Google independently developed a language and made it compatible with the JVM. In the real world Google wanted Java and didn't like the licensing terms. So they copied the Java API and from that starting point built out their own version of Java.
    - CobrastanJorji 6y ago
      But "making it compatible with the JVM" would involve implementing the Java standard library, right? Recognizing terms like "java.lang.String" or "java.lang.Math.max" and doing the right thing? To do that, aren't you creating a copy of the Java API?
      - treis 6y ago
        Nobody is arguing that you can't copy the API if it's fair use. Copying the API in order to make a copy of the software isn't fair use.
        gknoy 6y ago
        Strange, in hardware land I thought that a clean-room reimplementation of something (where you make something with the same interface -- the API of the hardware) was legal.
        pjmlp 6y ago
        Only if the clean-room re-implementation was properly done with separate teams, proven in court that both teams never had any contact with each other beyond written specification architecture documents.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Developing a programming language does not give you brownie points with a judge, and has no bearing on the matter. What you are suggestying is copying the binary API instead of the texual one. It is equally the subject of copyright. In the real world Google deleoped their own equivalent of the JVM, which uses different bytecode. This is technically more difficult than putting together a language. But that has no relevance to the subject of copyright.

treis 6y ago

>If I'm understanding your argument, if Google independently developed a programming language, and then they implemented a compatibility layer that accepted Java bytecode invoking Java APIs and translated it in realtime to their not-Java programming language, then this would be okay? Yes >How would such a programming language be detectably different from being an implementation of Java? It would have it's own unique API. As an example, Ruby can run on the JVM via JRuby and it's clear that Ruby is a different language than Java.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
This doesnt make sence - you jyst replaced the textual API used at compiletime with a binary API used at runtime. Its literally same difference.
- treis 6y ago
  They're clearly different. In this example Google independently developed a language and made it compatible with the JVM. In the real world Google wanted Java and didn't like the licensing terms. So they copied the Java API and from that starting point built out their own version of Java.
  - CobrastanJorji 6y ago
    But "making it compatible with the JVM" would involve implementing the Java standard library, right? Recognizing terms like "java.lang.String" or "java.lang.Math.max" and doing the right thing? To do that, aren't you creating a copy of the Java API?
    - treis 6y ago
      Nobody is arguing that you can't copy the API if it's fair use. Copying the API in order to make a copy of the software isn't fair use.
      - gknoy 6y ago
        Strange, in hardware land I thought that a clean-room reimplementation of something (where you make something with the same interface -- the API of the hardware) was legal.
        pjmlp 6y ago
        Only if the clean-room re-implementation was properly done with separate teams, proven in court that both teams never had any contact with each other beyond written specification architecture documents.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Developing a programming language does not give you brownie points with a judge, and has no bearing on the matter. What you are suggestying is copying the binary API instead of the texual one. It is equally the subject of copyright. In the real world Google deleoped their own equivalent of the JVM, which uses different bytecode. This is technically more difficult than putting together a language. But that has no relevance to the subject of copyright.