6 ms·

I'm glad for the verdict but this is such bullshit. Google implemented exactly enough to create the illusion of letting people use their Java talents then drag

I'm glad for the verdict but this is such bullshit. Google implemented exactly enough to create the illusion of letting people use their Java talents then dragged their feet with a half broken out-of-date language environment. And they did all this to save money, not some sort of noble rebellion or clever hack. > Sun offered a licensing deal of between US$30 and 50 million. Schmidt said Google would have paid for that license, but they were concerned that Sun had also requested some shared control of Android along with the fee. A pittance for Google but that vague "some control" sounds really bad right? Well fortunately there's a history here and we know from past licensing deals (J++) this control is enforcing interoperability with other Java implementation. And of course Oracle spells that out pretty easily: > Oracle states that Sun refused because Google’s intention was essentially to fork Java to a Google version of the language, and to prevent it being inter-operable with other versions, an idea which was “anathema” to the “write once run anywhere” basis of the language. Google got a cheap license and the only stipulation was "don't fuck up the Java ecosystem by having your OS run Java-but-not-really" but that was too much for them and exactly what they ended up doing! I don't know why people are acting like this is some victory of open source. Maybe a victory for open source, but championed by a greedy corporation that fragmented the Java ecosystem for years. I wish Oracle could have taken another angle here, they deserved damages from Google for this. Google literally pulled a J++ and got away with it.

mindcrime 6y ago
I don't know why people are acting like this is some victory of open source I don't know that anybody is saying that Google did anything specifically Good or Just or Noble or anything. The celebratory aspect is more based on all the Bad Things that would have happened in the future if this decision had come down in favor of Oracle.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  That's literally the next sentence that you intentionally omitted. And I've seen plenty of people paint Oracle as some evil boogeyman like this is some good vs evil struggle. Oracle wasn't trying to make Bad Things happen. They were seeking damages from a damaging situation, and if bad things had happened... I'd blame the patent trolls and judges that enable them. Their insanity continues regardless of the verdict after all, and there are plenty of otherwise reasonable takes ruined by their existence.
  - mindcrime 6y ago
    Oracle wasn't trying to make Bad Things happen. I didn't say they were. They were seeking damages from a damaging situation, and if bad things had happened... I'd blame the patent trolls and judges that enable them. The issue at hand is about copyright not patents. And note that I'm not saying that nothing bad can, or will, ever happen again. I'm just saying that the consequences of this decision coming down the other way would have been Very Bad, which makes the current decision a Very Good Thing in general.
    - BoorishBears 6y ago
      I didn't say you said that. Please read the comment again, slowly. You're saying "I've only seen people say we avoided very bad thing" I'm saying that's simply not the case, plenty of people are attaching some sort of morality to this. Edit: Case in point, the other reply to the comment is now one of those people. And patent trolls and their sympathetic judges are 100% the same people who would have frenzy fed here, many of then (most?) are also copyright trolls in the context of software. In case you didn't know.
  - kps 6y ago
    > I've seen plenty of people paint Oracle as some evil boogeyman “Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower.”
    - BoorishBears 6y ago
      That's exactly it, except here I would say someone stuck their hand in the lawnmower and got away with it. But people were upset the lawnmower tried to take the hand at all
  - dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
    Are you familiar with Oracle's business practices? They are indeed evil. Google started out with the stated intent to not be evil but now they're allowing that possibly and are making good progress.
- bobmalone123 6y ago
  It looks like you are saying that what Google did may be bad too, but you are happy anyways because it’s good for some group of people (which may include you). This actually stifle innovation since companies will now consider that capital spent on designing APIs May be leveraged by their competitor simply stealing the API and save on that investment.
- kaba0 6y ago
  What bad things would have happened? This ruling specifically says that it was fair use, not that APIs are copyrightable - which seems to be the buggy man. As it currently stands, APIs absolutely fall under copyright laws.
  - mindcrime 6y ago
    What bad things would have happened? It would have become MUCH more dangerous to provide an alternate implementation of someone else's library or interface, which I believe would have have a profoundly negative effect on the entire software industry. As it currently stands, APIs absolutely fall under copyright laws. Yes, but now there is a very strong precedent establishing the idea that copying those copyrighted API's is OK anyway (under Fair Use) under at least some circumstances. And based off the way the SCOTUS decision was worded, it strikes me (admittedly, IANAL) that the set of circumstances that are captured by this are pretty large.
    - kaba0 6y ago
      IANAL, but it was always true that fair use made code exempt from copyright. Wine is alive specifically because of that.
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        This case would have changed that has the rolling differed.
  - curt15 6y ago
    >As it currently stands, APIs absolutely fall under copyright laws. This opinion doesn't say so. "We shall assume, but purely for argument’s sake, that the entire Sun Java API falls within the definition of that which can be copy-righted. We shall ask instead whether Google’s use of part of that API was a “fair use."
    - kaba0 6y ago
simonh 6y ago
That's a thorough miss-understanding and misrepresentation of the situation. It also has nothing to do with open source specifically. Google never promoted Dalvik as being a licensed Java VM implementation and never claimed it was a compatible Java runtime. The license was for logos and trademarks. As long as they didn't use those logos and trademarks, there's no violation of the license for those things. The API case is based on copyright, not trademarks or licenses so is a separate issue. This is why Microsoft could lose their dispute with Sun over the MSJVM which was a non-compliant JVM implementation, but still come out with J# which was an implementation of the Java language running on .NET. Microsoft licenses the Java trademarks and claimed the MSJVM was an implementation of the Java runtime, while breaking compatibility requirements for the license. Therefore they were in violation of the license. The .NET platform was never claimed to be anything to do with Java, so having Java code run on it in the form of J# was fine. The situation with Google using the Java language running on Dalvik is exactly analogous.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  This sounds like you read Jonathan Schwartz's testimony and almost misinterpreted it. The license included using Java's name and trademark and that was for Sun's benefit, not Google. Google wasn't asking to call it a Java phone. That's why part of the testimony is actually Sun saying they'd pay for that And the rest of your comment is completely missing the mark here. You're saying MS was in the wrong with J++ because they licensed Java. I'm saying MS was in the wrong because saying you're using language X then randomly not supporting parts of that language is a shitty thing to do when you have a large presence because then you start to fragment the language's user base. Copyright be damned. (Which is exactly why I said I wish they could have taken a different angle) - Logo or no logo, for years Google said you program Android in Java. Their "Java" did not track the language everyone else knows, using a strange smattering of features from 6 and 7 in this weird hybrid that hobbled along. As a result there was plenty of confusion among developers about what worked on Android. As someone who has mostly held day jobs that involved Android for a decade or so now, I can confidently say it was problematic and Android dragging its feet while being such a large platform caused people to avoid using language features. When Lambdas first landed for example, I remember multiple projects refusing to use them since there was no official way to support them on Android (retrolambda which was written by a former coworker of mine addressed this) This is so simple, Android should have licensed Java, created a compatible implementation, and kept it up to date. Would it have been hard? Yes. Would it have been better for Android developers who ended up using wonky work arounds, people learning Java and dealing with two sets of rules, and the Java ecosystem as a whole? Also yes.
dlubarov 6y ago
Can you be more specific about the differences your talking about? As far as I'm aware, Google never added their own features to the language itself. Granted, they were a bit slow to support new versions like Java 8. They also chose not to support libraries like awt, but I wouldn't consider those part of the Java language; rather they're part of Java SE.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  I already mentioned multiple above.
  - Daho0n 6y ago
    No, you mentioned things Google didn't implement. That's not the same as making it incompatible. In this case that would be Google adding things to Java, not skipping some.
    - BoorishBears 6y ago
      What on earth are you on about? Not supporting random parts of a contract programs rely on to function makes your platform incompatible. Especially when you claim support for an update but then randomly cut out parts of the functionality. In what universe does incompatibility somehow require... adding "things"... like what? I don't have much patience for people so out of their depth they don't understand the table stakes for a meaningful conversation on a topic.

mindcrime 6y ago

I don't know why people are acting like this is some victory of open source I don't know that anybody is saying that Google did anything specifically Good or Just or Noble or anything. The celebratory aspect is more based on all the Bad Things that would have happened in the future if this decision had come down in favor of Oracle.

BoorishBears 6y ago
That's literally the next sentence that you intentionally omitted. And I've seen plenty of people paint Oracle as some evil boogeyman like this is some good vs evil struggle. Oracle wasn't trying to make Bad Things happen. They were seeking damages from a damaging situation, and if bad things had happened... I'd blame the patent trolls and judges that enable them. Their insanity continues regardless of the verdict after all, and there are plenty of otherwise reasonable takes ruined by their existence.
- mindcrime 6y ago
  Oracle wasn't trying to make Bad Things happen. I didn't say they were. They were seeking damages from a damaging situation, and if bad things had happened... I'd blame the patent trolls and judges that enable them. The issue at hand is about copyright not patents. And note that I'm not saying that nothing bad can, or will, ever happen again. I'm just saying that the consequences of this decision coming down the other way would have been Very Bad, which makes the current decision a Very Good Thing in general.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    I didn't say you said that. Please read the comment again, slowly. You're saying "I've only seen people say we avoided very bad thing" I'm saying that's simply not the case, plenty of people are attaching some sort of morality to this. Edit: Case in point, the other reply to the comment is now one of those people. And patent trolls and their sympathetic judges are 100% the same people who would have frenzy fed here, many of then (most?) are also copyright trolls in the context of software. In case you didn't know.
- kps 6y ago
  > I've seen plenty of people paint Oracle as some evil boogeyman “Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower.”
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    That's exactly it, except here I would say someone stuck their hand in the lawnmower and got away with it. But people were upset the lawnmower tried to take the hand at all
- dkjaudyeqooe 6y ago
  Are you familiar with Oracle's business practices? They are indeed evil. Google started out with the stated intent to not be evil but now they're allowing that possibly and are making good progress.
bobmalone123 6y ago
It looks like you are saying that what Google did may be bad too, but you are happy anyways because it’s good for some group of people (which may include you). This actually stifle innovation since companies will now consider that capital spent on designing APIs May be leveraged by their competitor simply stealing the API and save on that investment.
kaba0 6y ago
What bad things would have happened? This ruling specifically says that it was fair use, not that APIs are copyrightable - which seems to be the buggy man. As it currently stands, APIs absolutely fall under copyright laws.
- mindcrime 6y ago
  What bad things would have happened? It would have become MUCH more dangerous to provide an alternate implementation of someone else's library or interface, which I believe would have have a profoundly negative effect on the entire software industry. As it currently stands, APIs absolutely fall under copyright laws. Yes, but now there is a very strong precedent establishing the idea that copying those copyrighted API's is OK anyway (under Fair Use) under at least some circumstances. And based off the way the SCOTUS decision was worded, it strikes me (admittedly, IANAL) that the set of circumstances that are captured by this are pretty large.
  - kaba0 6y ago
    IANAL, but it was always true that fair use made code exempt from copyright. Wine is alive specifically because of that.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      This case would have changed that has the rolling differed.
- curt15 6y ago
  >As it currently stands, APIs absolutely fall under copyright laws. This opinion doesn't say so. "We shall assume, but purely for argument’s sake, that the entire Sun Java API falls within the definition of that which can be copy-righted. We shall ask instead whether Google’s use of part of that API was a “fair use."
  - kaba0 6y ago

simonh 6y ago

That's a thorough miss-understanding and misrepresentation of the situation. It also has nothing to do with open source specifically. Google never promoted Dalvik as being a licensed Java VM implementation and never claimed it was a compatible Java runtime. The license was for logos and trademarks. As long as they didn't use those logos and trademarks, there's no violation of the license for those things. The API case is based on copyright, not trademarks or licenses so is a separate issue. This is why Microsoft could lose their dispute with Sun over the MSJVM which was a non-compliant JVM implementation, but still come out with J# which was an implementation of the Java language running on .NET. Microsoft licenses the Java trademarks and claimed the MSJVM was an implementation of the Java runtime, while breaking compatibility requirements for the license. Therefore they were in violation of the license. The .NET platform was never claimed to be anything to do with Java, so having Java code run on it in the form of J# was fine. The situation with Google using the Java language running on Dalvik is exactly analogous.

BoorishBears 6y ago
This sounds like you read Jonathan Schwartz's testimony and almost misinterpreted it. The license included using Java's name and trademark and that was for Sun's benefit, not Google. Google wasn't asking to call it a Java phone. That's why part of the testimony is actually Sun saying they'd pay for that And the rest of your comment is completely missing the mark here. You're saying MS was in the wrong with J++ because they licensed Java. I'm saying MS was in the wrong because saying you're using language X then randomly not supporting parts of that language is a shitty thing to do when you have a large presence because then you start to fragment the language's user base. Copyright be damned. (Which is exactly why I said I wish they could have taken a different angle) - Logo or no logo, for years Google said you program Android in Java. Their "Java" did not track the language everyone else knows, using a strange smattering of features from 6 and 7 in this weird hybrid that hobbled along. As a result there was plenty of confusion among developers about what worked on Android. As someone who has mostly held day jobs that involved Android for a decade or so now, I can confidently say it was problematic and Android dragging its feet while being such a large platform caused people to avoid using language features. When Lambdas first landed for example, I remember multiple projects refusing to use them since there was no official way to support them on Android (retrolambda which was written by a former coworker of mine addressed this) This is so simple, Android should have licensed Java, created a compatible implementation, and kept it up to date. Would it have been hard? Yes. Would it have been better for Android developers who ended up using wonky work arounds, people learning Java and dealing with two sets of rules, and the Java ecosystem as a whole? Also yes.

dlubarov 6y ago

Can you be more specific about the differences your talking about? As far as I'm aware, Google never added their own features to the language itself. Granted, they were a bit slow to support new versions like Java 8. They also chose not to support libraries like awt, but I wouldn't consider those part of the Java language; rather they're part of Java SE.

BoorishBears 6y ago
I already mentioned multiple above.
- Daho0n 6y ago
  No, you mentioned things Google didn't implement. That's not the same as making it incompatible. In this case that would be Google adding things to Java, not skipping some.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    What on earth are you on about? Not supporting random parts of a contract programs rely on to function makes your platform incompatible. Especially when you claim support for an update but then randomly cut out parts of the functionality. In what universe does incompatibility somehow require... adding "things"... like what? I don't have much patience for people so out of their depth they don't understand the table stakes for a meaningful conversation on a topic.