4 ms·

> The idea that the whole of the software industry was under threat if Google wasn't able to wholesale violate Oracle's license terms for Java is absolutely lau

> The idea that the whole of the software industry was under threat if Google wasn't able to wholesale violate Oracle's license terms for Java is absolutely laughable Why is that? How is what Google did any different than what Stallman and Torvalds did when they created free reimplementations of the Unix API, or how the Wine and ReactOS projects reimplement the Windows API? The way I see it, the ability for us to write a drop-in-compatible replacement for proprietary software is a critically important right that allows us to defeat vendor lock-in, and it has fueled the growth of the software industry for decades.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
A drop-in-compatible replacement was available under GPL, the OpenJDK. The entire reason Google needed to rip off Java was so that they could Apache license Android. Also, Android wasn't a drop-in-compatible replacement. If it was, it might have a case, but the whole breakdown between Google and Oracle in negotiating was that Oracle had insisted on interoperability, and Google wanted to break compatibility. This is why the idea that the Supreme Court ruled on fair use is so freaking laughable, everything Google was trying to do was an antithesis to fair use, interoperability, and open source.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > A drop-in-compatible replacement was available under GPL, the OpenJDK. The initiative that led to OpenJDK started in 2006 with the release of the JDK (IIRC, minus some components Sun lacked rights to) in 2007. Android development started in 2003, with the first beta in 2007. OpenJDK wasn’t, in any meaningful sense, available for the development of Android.
- D13Fd 6y ago
  > A drop-in-compatible replacement was available under GPL So what? The question is whether what they did was fair use, and the Court held that it was. The availability of alternatives under other licenses isn't part of the analysis.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

A drop-in-compatible replacement was available under GPL, the OpenJDK. The entire reason Google needed to rip off Java was so that they could Apache license Android. Also, Android wasn't a drop-in-compatible replacement. If it was, it might have a case, but the whole breakdown between Google and Oracle in negotiating was that Oracle had insisted on interoperability, and Google wanted to break compatibility. This is why the idea that the Supreme Court ruled on fair use is so freaking laughable, everything Google was trying to do was an antithesis to fair use, interoperability, and open source.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> A drop-in-compatible replacement was available under GPL, the OpenJDK. The initiative that led to OpenJDK started in 2006 with the release of the JDK (IIRC, minus some components Sun lacked rights to) in 2007. Android development started in 2003, with the first beta in 2007. OpenJDK wasn’t, in any meaningful sense, available for the development of Android.
D13Fd 6y ago
> A drop-in-compatible replacement was available under GPL So what? The question is whether what they did was fair use, and the Court held that it was. The availability of alternatives under other licenses isn't part of the analysis.