33 ms·

They got an Android lawsuit against Google over Android.

by kmonsen 5y ago

pjmlp 5y ago
Rightfully so, we don't need Google's own flavour of J++.
- monocasa 5y ago
  Apparently not rightfully so since the courts struck it down.
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Unfortunately, hence the Java community got screwed by your employer and now have to put up with Android Java.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      I'm not employed by Google, and never have been; not everyone who disagrees with you has been paid off to do so.
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        You have an history defending Google's actions to screw the Java community in name of Android Java, so that is a natural thought. And no, not an Oracle employee, but actually employed by one of the Java main contributors, quite easy to find out which one, although I speak in name of the Java community unable to write proper Java on Android, while ISO C and ISO C++ are fully supported.
        monocasa 5y ago
        Admin or dang, I thought paid shill accusations were pretty verboten here?
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
- Shared404 5y ago
  ... Really? Do we really want it to be possible to copyright API's?
  - kaba0 5y ago
    That was not decided in the lawsuit, only that in this case google copy was fair use.
    - nextaccountic 5y ago
      But for fair use to exist there must be copyright, right?
      - kaba0 5y ago
        Yes, and since code is copyrightable, and API is code, the default is that APIs are copyrightable. What was decided that this reuse by Google was fair use (which might give precedent to similar issues, but in itself doesn’t mean that APIs would not be copyrightable)
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Someone had to make the work to create them, they did not ask a genie for them.
- lmm 5y ago
  Maybe they should've given out TCK licenses then? You know, the thing that exists to prevent fragmentation of Java except you're not actually allowed to use it?
  - kaba0 5y ago
    TCK is free for OpenJDK forks, and I believe IBM has more than enough money to pay for it. Also, java is one of the few languages with complete specifications, instead of saying that here is the reference implementation, what it does is the spec.
    - lmm 5y ago
      > TCK is free for OpenJDK forks, and I believe IBM has more than enough money to pay for it. But it's not available at any price for independent implementations like Dalvik (I'm sure if it were merely a matter of money Google would've paid up). Most people who built the Java ecosystem were bait-and-switched: we were told the language would be free and the trademarks etc. were just to stop incompatible implementations, but that turned out to be false. > Also, java is one of the few languages with complete specifications, instead of saying that here is the reference implementation, what it does is the spec. Allegedly. Given that there are no independent published implementations (various organisations claim to have independent implementations but none of them are readily available), we should be sceptical in practice.
      - pjmlp 5y ago
        No it wasn't a matter of money as the emails revealed during the case proved.
      - kaba0 5y ago
        > But it's not available at any price for independent implementations like Dalvik Then how are there plenty of independent JVMs that can legally call themselves Java?
        lmm 5y ago

They got an Android lawsuit against Google over Android.

pjmlp 5y ago

Rightfully so, we don't need Google's own flavour of J++.

monocasa 5y ago
Apparently not rightfully so since the courts struck it down.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Unfortunately, hence the Java community got screwed by your employer and now have to put up with Android Java.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    I'm not employed by Google, and never have been; not everyone who disagrees with you has been paid off to do so.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      You have an history defending Google's actions to screw the Java community in name of Android Java, so that is a natural thought. And no, not an Oracle employee, but actually employed by one of the Java main contributors, quite easy to find out which one, although I speak in name of the Java community unable to write proper Java on Android, while ISO C and ISO C++ are fully supported.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        Admin or dang, I thought paid shill accusations were pretty verboten here?
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
Shared404 5y ago
... Really? Do we really want it to be possible to copyright API's?
- kaba0 5y ago
  That was not decided in the lawsuit, only that in this case google copy was fair use.
  - nextaccountic 5y ago
    But for fair use to exist there must be copyright, right?
    - kaba0 5y ago
      Yes, and since code is copyrightable, and API is code, the default is that APIs are copyrightable. What was decided that this reuse by Google was fair use (which might give precedent to similar issues, but in itself doesn’t mean that APIs would not be copyrightable)
- pjmlp 5y ago
  Someone had to make the work to create them, they did not ask a genie for them.
lmm 5y ago
Maybe they should've given out TCK licenses then? You know, the thing that exists to prevent fragmentation of Java except you're not actually allowed to use it?
- kaba0 5y ago
  TCK is free for OpenJDK forks, and I believe IBM has more than enough money to pay for it. Also, java is one of the few languages with complete specifications, instead of saying that here is the reference implementation, what it does is the spec.
  - lmm 5y ago
    > TCK is free for OpenJDK forks, and I believe IBM has more than enough money to pay for it. But it's not available at any price for independent implementations like Dalvik (I'm sure if it were merely a matter of money Google would've paid up). Most people who built the Java ecosystem were bait-and-switched: we were told the language would be free and the trademarks etc. were just to stop incompatible implementations, but that turned out to be false. > Also, java is one of the few languages with complete specifications, instead of saying that here is the reference implementation, what it does is the spec. Allegedly. Given that there are no independent published implementations (various organisations claim to have independent implementations but none of them are readily available), we should be sceptical in practice.
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      No it wasn't a matter of money as the emails revealed during the case proved.
    - kaba0 5y ago
      > But it's not available at any price for independent implementations like Dalvik Then how are there plenty of independent JVMs that can legally call themselves Java?
      - lmm 5y ago