6 ms·

Google's Opening Statement - Language is free

67 points by hluska 15y ago

ajross 15y ago
First off, I am clearly in complete agreement with the argument presented. That said, now that this case is live and in the media, it should be noted that there's a certain deep irony in it. Andy Rubin directed all GPL code (all that was practical, anyway) to be removed from the Android userspace out of fear of IP purity concerns. And in the process of all that forking he did deep harm to the open source community. Not just code was forked, but infrastructure was abandoned: compare the level of robustness and transparency of Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu/OpenSUSE packaging to that of the "I cooked a ROM, download it here!" culture in the android world. Yet Rubin allowed the use of the developer tools of a clearly proprietary product from another company without batting an eyelash. And no one called him on it. And now they have to have this ridiculous fight. So what was the point of forking Linux again?
- mey 15y ago
  I personally don't care that a company is looking out for it's "best interests"* internally. I am happy that Google is effectively defending the Java community from Oracle (since Oracle doesn't wish to be it's steward.) * If this move is actually in their best interest, and what best interest IS I have no idea. But it's their perception. You could check out http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Main_Page http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Main_Page Not sure if they are still running these days, but they have the goals you seek in mind.
- cdibona 15y ago
  I fundamentally disagree that Android did deep harm to open source. That's just absurd.
  - ajross 15y ago
    I said it hurt the community. Your code is open. And much of it is great. But it's not something that can be meaningfully shared. Again: compare the community work available at Launchpad or rpmfusion or build.opensuse.org (compatible, signed, versioned packages with automated dependency tracking) to "I cooked a ROM doodz!". The far and away best example of community work in the Android world (Cyanogen) is, what, five months behind the core team at even shipping the software that's already in the field? It's depressing. And what's absolutely infuriating to me (and the point of this rant) is that you started with all that good stuff and threw it out the window chasing some ridiculous notion of IP purity that -- surprise! -- was basically worthless as you're being sued over IP anyway.
    - cdibona 15y ago
      Do you really think the legal picture would be any different if Android were under copyleft?
      - ajross 15y ago
        Of course not, that wasn't my point at all. I think the community picture would be very different if Android had inherited the infrastructure and community of desktop linux instead of charging ahead with needless and inferior reimplementations of glibc, udev, init/upstart/systemd, rpm/dpkg, etc... in a way that cut them off from the rest of the linux community. Ubuntu and Fedora users can package stuff for others in a robust way, including modifications to the system libraries. How nice would it be to fix the awful accelerometer polling on the Galaxy Nexus and point users to a RPM repo? Try out some new gesture tuning? See the point? That kind of work exists, sort of, in the Android world, but it sucks rocks. And the reason for all this breakage was, ostensibly, "IP purity" and the desire to avoid law suits and ambiguity about the software licensing. Which, as it happens, was a fools errand anyway as the platform is being sued regardless. Is it clear now what I'm saying?
    - nknight 15y ago
      You clearly lack the experience necessary to understand the dynamics at play here. The phenomenon you bizarrely, insultingly refer to as "I cooked a ROM doodz!" is not arrested by copyleft. Small-scale non-commercial GPL violations by individuals are absolutely rampant in a number of communities. Android would not be any different -- nor is it, in fact, since the kernel is still under the GPL.
- starwed 15y ago
  >compare the level of robustness and transparency of Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu/OpenSUSE packaging to that of the "I cooked a ROM, download it here!" culture in the android world. I don't really understand what your point is here -- a ROM is an image of the operating system, and as far as I know the situation is the same with mainstream Linux. You typically install a distro by downloading the iso from the web and then running it.
dizidoro 15y ago
if U.S copyrights the english language, this commentary will infringe U.S laws and iĺl go to guantanamo! what wonderful world...
recoiledsnake 15y ago
If that is true, does that mean anyone will be free to implement any programming language developed by anyone, regardless of the designers' wishes? Looks like there be will no monetary incentive in inventing a very innovative languages when the big guys can just come in and re-implement it and not pay a cent.
- fluidcruft 15y ago
  Someone should ask Wolfram what he thinks about this. ;)
- koenigdavidmj 15y ago
  There is already a trademark-based restriction on the name Java. You can't call your system Java unless it passes the TCK. You can't pass the TCK without signing some sort of license about what your implementation can and can't do. TeX has the same concept with the TRIP test.
- nknight 15y ago
  Ignoring the first-to-market incentive (which is substantial), is there any monetary incentive now? Has anyone else ever tried to make a business out of somehow "licensing" a general-purpose programming language minus implementation? The concept doesn't even make sense. Do you pay someone to let you speak English? Why would you pay someone to let you "speak" any other language?
  - arihant 15y ago
    What if I ship a language with implementation but would like to prevent others from implementing it? Sometimes language implementations are the product - things like R, Matlab and Mathematica are close examples. What if I figured out a much better programming language for Finance software and would like to prevent every other company from implementing it? This debate is far more complex than what people think.
    - chimeracoder 15y ago
      R's source code is released under the GPL. MATLAB has a GNU-licensed equivalent (GNU Octave), which has been around since 1988. How could you patent a language? What are you patenting? The compiler/interpreter? The context-free grammar (assuming it has one)? The language specification? If the specification, then you really mean a copyright, not a patent, because a language specification is just a description of a language, and you can't patent that. But just because you've placed a copyright on your description doesn't mean you hold a copyright on anything that anybody creates after having read that description - that would be ludicrous! Sure, we can talk about the compiler/interpreter itself, but that doesn't prevent someone else from going ahead and creating a completely separate compiler that implements the same exact specification (look at the GNU Compiler Collection, more commonly known as gcc).
robomartin 15y ago
Isn't this about the implementation of the virtual machine rather than the language itself? Funny enough, thinking about a project over the last few weeks I found myself wondering if there were any legal restrictions to implementing your own JVM with commercial purposes. I couldn't find any guidance on this at the Oracle site. Maybe the answer to this question will be borne out of this trial?
- hartror 15y ago
  I believe all the implementation patents have been dismissed by the USPTO bar 1/2 of one which is still undergoing review. What is left is Oracle's claim of language copyright which will hopefully get the ruling it deserves.
trentmb 15y ago
There was a tribe in Chile that tried to sue Microsoft for supporting their language, not sure what came of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapuche_language#Microsoft_lawsuit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapuche_language#Microsoft_laws...
mattiask 15y ago
Are they arguing that all languages are free or that the Java language specifically was free? If it's the former it seems a little strange. If I tomorrow invented some programming language that for instance described some novel way to handle concurrency, why wouldn't that be protectable? I'm not pro-patents but languages being public domain per default doesn't seem right either
- obtu 15y ago
  If you are arguing for monopolies on ideas, that makes you pro-patent.
  - mattiask 15y ago
    Aren't all patents ideas? Surely the difference between a patent or not can't be whether the ideas is a physical object or not. If all patents were abolished tomorrow I wouldn't mind, but as so long as they aren't it seems silly that some things that really demand a high degree of creativity and innovation isn't protected. That kinda seems to be the point of patents, not like coming up with the idea of buying something with 1-click
    - obtu 15y ago
      Creativity and innovation have been happening for much of human history. Perceived unfairness that the progress of technology doesn't delineate individual's contributions isn't really something that has held back society. On the other hand, the patent litigation game is negative sum (it destroys wealth) and mostly enriches lawyers: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1930272 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1930272 http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/19/terrible-cost-patents/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/19/terrible-cost-patents/ In addition to the litigation costs, the prohibition to build incrementally or to reuse or rediscover ideas makes R&D more expensive for lesser results. So making ideas exclusive has not rewarded R&D and has made society poorer overall, despite rhetoric about incentives, propriety, and fairness.
      - 15y ago

67 points by hluska 15y ago

First off, I am clearly in complete agreement with the argument presented. That said, now that this case is live and in the media, it should be noted that there's a certain deep irony in it. Andy Rubin directed all GPL code (all that was practical, anyway) to be removed from the Android userspace out of fear of IP purity concerns. And in the process of all that forking he did deep harm to the open source community. Not just code was forked, but infrastructure was abandoned: compare the level of robustness and transparency of Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu/OpenSUSE packaging to that of the "I cooked a ROM, download it here!" culture in the android world. Yet Rubin allowed the use of the developer tools of a clearly proprietary product from another company without batting an eyelash. And no one called him on it. And now they have to have this ridiculous fight. So what was the point of forking Linux again?

mey 15y ago
I personally don't care that a company is looking out for it's "best interests"* internally. I am happy that Google is effectively defending the Java community from Oracle (since Oracle doesn't wish to be it's steward.) * If this move is actually in their best interest, and what best interest IS I have no idea. But it's their perception. You could check out http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Main_Page http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Main_Page Not sure if they are still running these days, but they have the goals you seek in mind.
cdibona 15y ago
I fundamentally disagree that Android did deep harm to open source. That's just absurd.
- ajross 15y ago
  I said it hurt the community. Your code is open. And much of it is great. But it's not something that can be meaningfully shared. Again: compare the community work available at Launchpad or rpmfusion or build.opensuse.org (compatible, signed, versioned packages with automated dependency tracking) to "I cooked a ROM doodz!". The far and away best example of community work in the Android world (Cyanogen) is, what, five months behind the core team at even shipping the software that's already in the field? It's depressing. And what's absolutely infuriating to me (and the point of this rant) is that you started with all that good stuff and threw it out the window chasing some ridiculous notion of IP purity that -- surprise! -- was basically worthless as you're being sued over IP anyway.
  - cdibona 15y ago
    Do you really think the legal picture would be any different if Android were under copyleft?
    - ajross 15y ago
      Of course not, that wasn't my point at all. I think the community picture would be very different if Android had inherited the infrastructure and community of desktop linux instead of charging ahead with needless and inferior reimplementations of glibc, udev, init/upstart/systemd, rpm/dpkg, etc... in a way that cut them off from the rest of the linux community. Ubuntu and Fedora users can package stuff for others in a robust way, including modifications to the system libraries. How nice would it be to fix the awful accelerometer polling on the Galaxy Nexus and point users to a RPM repo? Try out some new gesture tuning? See the point? That kind of work exists, sort of, in the Android world, but it sucks rocks. And the reason for all this breakage was, ostensibly, "IP purity" and the desire to avoid law suits and ambiguity about the software licensing. Which, as it happens, was a fools errand anyway as the platform is being sued regardless. Is it clear now what I'm saying?
  - nknight 15y ago
    You clearly lack the experience necessary to understand the dynamics at play here. The phenomenon you bizarrely, insultingly refer to as "I cooked a ROM doodz!" is not arrested by copyleft. Small-scale non-commercial GPL violations by individuals are absolutely rampant in a number of communities. Android would not be any different -- nor is it, in fact, since the kernel is still under the GPL.
starwed 15y ago
>compare the level of robustness and transparency of Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu/OpenSUSE packaging to that of the "I cooked a ROM, download it here!" culture in the android world. I don't really understand what your point is here -- a ROM is an image of the operating system, and as far as I know the situation is the same with mainstream Linux. You typically install a distro by downloading the iso from the web and then running it.

dizidoro 15y ago

if U.S copyrights the english language, this commentary will infringe U.S laws and iĺl go to guantanamo! what wonderful world...

recoiledsnake 15y ago

If that is true, does that mean anyone will be free to implement any programming language developed by anyone, regardless of the designers' wishes? Looks like there be will no monetary incentive in inventing a very innovative languages when the big guys can just come in and re-implement it and not pay a cent.

fluidcruft 15y ago
Someone should ask Wolfram what he thinks about this. ;)
koenigdavidmj 15y ago
There is already a trademark-based restriction on the name Java. You can't call your system Java unless it passes the TCK. You can't pass the TCK without signing some sort of license about what your implementation can and can't do. TeX has the same concept with the TRIP test.
nknight 15y ago
Ignoring the first-to-market incentive (which is substantial), is there any monetary incentive now? Has anyone else ever tried to make a business out of somehow "licensing" a general-purpose programming language minus implementation? The concept doesn't even make sense. Do you pay someone to let you speak English? Why would you pay someone to let you "speak" any other language?
- arihant 15y ago
  What if I ship a language with implementation but would like to prevent others from implementing it? Sometimes language implementations are the product - things like R, Matlab and Mathematica are close examples. What if I figured out a much better programming language for Finance software and would like to prevent every other company from implementing it? This debate is far more complex than what people think.
  - chimeracoder 15y ago
    R's source code is released under the GPL. MATLAB has a GNU-licensed equivalent (GNU Octave), which has been around since 1988. How could you patent a language? What are you patenting? The compiler/interpreter? The context-free grammar (assuming it has one)? The language specification? If the specification, then you really mean a copyright, not a patent, because a language specification is just a description of a language, and you can't patent that. But just because you've placed a copyright on your description doesn't mean you hold a copyright on anything that anybody creates after having read that description - that would be ludicrous! Sure, we can talk about the compiler/interpreter itself, but that doesn't prevent someone else from going ahead and creating a completely separate compiler that implements the same exact specification (look at the GNU Compiler Collection, more commonly known as gcc).

robomartin 15y ago

Isn't this about the implementation of the virtual machine rather than the language itself? Funny enough, thinking about a project over the last few weeks I found myself wondering if there were any legal restrictions to implementing your own JVM with commercial purposes. I couldn't find any guidance on this at the Oracle site. Maybe the answer to this question will be borne out of this trial?

hartror 15y ago
I believe all the implementation patents have been dismissed by the USPTO bar 1/2 of one which is still undergoing review. What is left is Oracle's claim of language copyright which will hopefully get the ruling it deserves.

trentmb 15y ago

There was a tribe in Chile that tried to sue Microsoft for supporting their language, not sure what came of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapuche_language#Microsoft_lawsuit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapuche_language#Microsoft_laws...

mattiask 15y ago

Are they arguing that all languages are free or that the Java language specifically was free? If it's the former it seems a little strange. If I tomorrow invented some programming language that for instance described some novel way to handle concurrency, why wouldn't that be protectable? I'm not pro-patents but languages being public domain per default doesn't seem right either

obtu 15y ago
If you are arguing for monopolies on ideas, that makes you pro-patent.
- mattiask 15y ago
  Aren't all patents ideas? Surely the difference between a patent or not can't be whether the ideas is a physical object or not. If all patents were abolished tomorrow I wouldn't mind, but as so long as they aren't it seems silly that some things that really demand a high degree of creativity and innovation isn't protected. That kinda seems to be the point of patents, not like coming up with the idea of buying something with 1-click
  - obtu 15y ago
    Creativity and innovation have been happening for much of human history. Perceived unfairness that the progress of technology doesn't delineate individual's contributions isn't really something that has held back society. On the other hand, the patent litigation game is negative sum (it destroys wealth) and mostly enriches lawyers: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1930272 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1930272 http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/19/terrible-cost-patents/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/08/19/terrible-cost-patents/ In addition to the litigation costs, the prohibition to build incrementally or to reuse or rediscover ideas makes R&D more expensive for lesser results. So making ideas exclusive has not rewarded R&D and has made society poorer overall, despite rhetoric about incentives, propriety, and fairness.
    - 15y ago