5 ms·

Oracle CEO Larry Ellison: I don't know if Java is free

45 points by donretag 15y ago

why-el 15y ago
Is there any other programming language with similar legal history? I would like to know.
- protomyth 15y ago
  We probably would have gotten a good preview with the Ashton-Tate vs Fox Software if Ashton-Tate hadn't totally bungled their copyright filings for dBase.
rollypolly 15y ago
What's the worse case scenario in this dispute? I'm sure Oracle just wants money, but could they legally prevent Google from using Java entirely? I can hardly imagine rebuilding the Android ecosystem on another language.
- aeturnum 15y ago
  From my superficial understanding, the direct result of this lawsuit affects only Google and Oracle and is only over money. Android will keep using Java (perhaps with a fee of some sort). There may be repercussions from the decision in other ways, but if you're an Android dev I don't think you need to worry.
- ChuckMcM 15y ago
  The worst case scenario is that the court finds, and it is upheld on appeal, that you can copyright the names of API calls, the number of arguments to those API calls, and the types associated with those arguments. In that scenario Novell would own the copyrights to things like read(int fd, char *buf, int size); and could sue you if you used them without compensation to Novell. Now that would be hugely disruptive and counter to a lot of existing case law in adjacent areas, perhaps the most directly applicable are Memorex vs IBM in the 70's with regard to making 'plug compatible' storage devices. Memorex made a compatible "DASD" (Direct Access Storage Devices, otherwise known as a hard disk) product and sold it to people who had IBM mainframes. IBM sued, Memorex counter sued, eventually Memorex prevailed and removed the threat of litigation over people whole made 'third party' add-ons. I don't think this case will try to contravene that case law but you did ask for the 'worst case' :-)
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- ajross 15y ago
  Oracle doesn't want to kill Android, they just want a cut of Google's revenue. The worst case scenario is that Google has to write them a big check.
whalesalad 15y ago
While I certainly prefer iOS to Android ... it's really unfortunate that such a situation has emerged. I think the Android platform has only done good for our planet. Developers have more jobs, more interesting apps are being created, more devices are being sold, there are more powerful and less expensive devices in the smartphone world that are becoming popular in emerging markets and third world countries (don't quote me, but a nearly free Android handset in Nigeria?) Mobile is a paradigm shift. People are more and more connected while away from their homes and desks. Payments are going mobile. Also, Android is the biggest competitor to Apple. I'm certainly an Apple guy in all aspects, but I do appreciate competition in the market to keep everyone working hard and innovating. Sucks that Oracle will not consider any of that. That no terms could be reached out of simple goodheartedness. Oracle isn't losing money because of Android as far as I am concerned. There might be profit lost due to licensing, but it just feels wrong to me.
- protomyth 15y ago
  > Oracle isn't losing money because of Android as far as I am concerned. There might be profit lost due to licensing From an Oracle shareholder's point of view (which I'm not), lost licensing fees == losing money.
  - mrsteveman1 15y ago
    Aren't they losing money every time someone downloads desktop Java SE for free then?
    - kodablah 15y ago
      Their argument (which I disagree with) is that creating Java applications is far different than creating a JVM and class libraries. The latter must be licensed. So in their view, driving developer adoption of their language increases the potential for licensing the implementation specification. But let's be honest, OpenJDK is gonna be all there is (sadly). I liked the direction Harmony went, and it was very strict about the legality of what it developed and used.
zeruch 15y ago
Ellison doesn't seem to know a lot these days (and this isn't just snark): his moves to purchase then effectively lose influence over various large aspects of the Sun assets (Jenkins, Open Office, MySQL), his vacillation on whether NoSQL is a threat or not, and this ever churning battle with Google over Java...just shows a very unfocused leadership at the helm.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  There is nothing more dangerous for a person like Ellison than being surrounded by yes-men. When you are effectively shielded from reality, it's really hard to make informed decisions.
  - zeruch 15y ago
    I'd agree with this. Ellison definitely seemed to have more of a steady hand when he had Ray Lane as COO; a textbook pragmatist, Lane was the diametric opposite of Ellison, and the balance between the two worked really well.
mindslight 15y ago
How is it that Google (et al) does not just fall back on the GPL-licensed OpenJDK? I understand that Oracle has a lot of money to burn on lawyers and other forms of harassment, but why does it seem that the common wisdom (not just this case, but the whole Java community seems generally scared of Oracle) is to completely ignore the generally accepted legal grants of this one specific GPL-licensed project?
- justincormack 15y ago
  Probably because not all their software is open source. Google would not like having to open source maps and gmail as gpl because the runtime was.
- kodablah 15y ago
  They have specifically addressed this. By having a GPL-based set of libraries to implement from, they would then be forcing this license to their app developers.
  - wmf 15y ago
    The GPL on OpenJDK does not infect apps.
    - kodablah 15y ago
      I understand the classpath exception. But if you look at the opening slides showing evidence Oracle will be presenting [1] (whether taken out of context or not), it specifically states from a Google email: "… and as far as GPL-ing the VM, everything that is linked with the VM would get infected. The problem with GPL in embedded systems is that it’s viral, and there is no way (for example) OEMs or Carriers to differentiate by adding proprietary works. We are building a platform where the entire purpose is to let people differentiate on top of it." So classpath exception aside (and the first OpenJDK release was after Android was started, but before the above quoted email was sent), they were still afraid of infecting their developers. [1] - http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1592541.pdf http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1... Edit: fixed wording
waterlesscloud 15y ago
So the message is pretty clear. No one should ever again build anything on top of Java.
- wmf 15y ago
  The lawsuit is not about building on top of Java; it's about building JVMs. Sun said all along that if you build a JVM you need to be compatible and in some cases you need to pay.
  - jshen 15y ago
    And who in their right mind would want to build software on top of the JVM if what you say is true?
    - wmf 15y ago
      Everyone? People generally like JVMs to be compatible. Since you're not making a specific argument I don't really know how to respond.
      - jshen 15y ago
        What you're implying is that the JVM is a proprietary platform. I think most people have treated the JVM as an open platform all these years (or they trusted Sun to effectively treat it as such), and I bet many of them wouldn't have used it if they'd thought it was a proprietary platform where the only allowed implementations have to be approved by Oracle. You seem to be implying that it's no big deal if it is proprietary. I disagree.
    - kodablah 15y ago
      You could argue that enforcing a TCK before you can legally call your product a Java Virtual Machine helps ensure consistency (whether or not the JVM you write is open source). The real problem is the FOU restrictions in the terms for the TCK to be called a "Java" implementation.
  - 15y ago
laconian 15y ago
I wonder if a ruling that favors Oracle will taint JVM-based languages such as Clojure?
- edwinnathaniel 15y ago
  This has nothing to do with Clojure, JRuby, or Jython at all to my knowledge. To understand why: assume Clojure is just a software running on top of Oracle's JVM. Just like Apache Tomcat.
  - laconian 15y ago
    Yes, but the same chilling effect that it would have on adoption of JVM-based solutions could transitively pass on to whatever builds on its stack.
patrickgzill 15y ago
Bryan Cantrill (formerly Sun, then worked for Oracle, now working elsewhere) talks about Oracle in his interesting talk here: http://smartos.org/2011/12/15/fork-yeah-the-rise-and-development-of-illumos-2/ http://smartos.org/2011/12/15/fork-yeah-the-rise-and-develop... He compares Oracle to a lawnmower - if you stick your hand in a mower, it will cut your hand off. Oracle is simple in the way that a mower is simple - a mower cuts what is put in front of the blade. Oracle wants money from whoever they can get it from.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
chaostheory 15y ago
I wonder what would have happened if IBM won the bidding war for Sun instead of Oracle.
- rbanffy 15y ago
  Both companies have reputations to preserve. Oracle is just preserving theirs.
Agathos 15y ago
I wouldn't answer in his position either. If there's any internal record that he wasn't sure (and how could he be before the trial's over), and if he mentioned it to anyone who isn't a lawyer (no attorney-client privilege), then a definite answer either way invites a perjury charge.

45 points by donretag 15y ago

why-el 15y ago

Is there any other programming language with similar legal history? I would like to know.

protomyth 15y ago
We probably would have gotten a good preview with the Ashton-Tate vs Fox Software if Ashton-Tate hadn't totally bungled their copyright filings for dBase.

rollypolly 15y ago

What's the worse case scenario in this dispute? I'm sure Oracle just wants money, but could they legally prevent Google from using Java entirely? I can hardly imagine rebuilding the Android ecosystem on another language.

aeturnum 15y ago
From my superficial understanding, the direct result of this lawsuit affects only Google and Oracle and is only over money. Android will keep using Java (perhaps with a fee of some sort). There may be repercussions from the decision in other ways, but if you're an Android dev I don't think you need to worry.
ChuckMcM 15y ago
The worst case scenario is that the court finds, and it is upheld on appeal, that you can copyright the names of API calls, the number of arguments to those API calls, and the types associated with those arguments. In that scenario Novell would own the copyrights to things like read(int fd, char *buf, int size); and could sue you if you used them without compensation to Novell. Now that would be hugely disruptive and counter to a lot of existing case law in adjacent areas, perhaps the most directly applicable are Memorex vs IBM in the 70's with regard to making 'plug compatible' storage devices. Memorex made a compatible "DASD" (Direct Access Storage Devices, otherwise known as a hard disk) product and sold it to people who had IBM mainframes. IBM sued, Memorex counter sued, eventually Memorex prevailed and removed the threat of litigation over people whole made 'third party' add-ons. I don't think this case will try to contravene that case law but you did ask for the 'worst case' :-)
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ajross 15y ago
Oracle doesn't want to kill Android, they just want a cut of Google's revenue. The worst case scenario is that Google has to write them a big check.

whalesalad 15y ago

While I certainly prefer iOS to Android ... it's really unfortunate that such a situation has emerged. I think the Android platform has only done good for our planet. Developers have more jobs, more interesting apps are being created, more devices are being sold, there are more powerful and less expensive devices in the smartphone world that are becoming popular in emerging markets and third world countries (don't quote me, but a nearly free Android handset in Nigeria?) Mobile is a paradigm shift. People are more and more connected while away from their homes and desks. Payments are going mobile. Also, Android is the biggest competitor to Apple. I'm certainly an Apple guy in all aspects, but I do appreciate competition in the market to keep everyone working hard and innovating. Sucks that Oracle will not consider any of that. That no terms could be reached out of simple goodheartedness. Oracle isn't losing money because of Android as far as I am concerned. There might be profit lost due to licensing, but it just feels wrong to me.

protomyth 15y ago
> Oracle isn't losing money because of Android as far as I am concerned. There might be profit lost due to licensing From an Oracle shareholder's point of view (which I'm not), lost licensing fees == losing money.
- mrsteveman1 15y ago
  Aren't they losing money every time someone downloads desktop Java SE for free then?
  - kodablah 15y ago
    Their argument (which I disagree with) is that creating Java applications is far different than creating a JVM and class libraries. The latter must be licensed. So in their view, driving developer adoption of their language increases the potential for licensing the implementation specification. But let's be honest, OpenJDK is gonna be all there is (sadly). I liked the direction Harmony went, and it was very strict about the legality of what it developed and used.

zeruch 15y ago

Ellison doesn't seem to know a lot these days (and this isn't just snark): his moves to purchase then effectively lose influence over various large aspects of the Sun assets (Jenkins, Open Office, MySQL), his vacillation on whether NoSQL is a threat or not, and this ever churning battle with Google over Java...just shows a very unfocused leadership at the helm.

rbanffy 15y ago
There is nothing more dangerous for a person like Ellison than being surrounded by yes-men. When you are effectively shielded from reality, it's really hard to make informed decisions.
- zeruch 15y ago
  I'd agree with this. Ellison definitely seemed to have more of a steady hand when he had Ray Lane as COO; a textbook pragmatist, Lane was the diametric opposite of Ellison, and the balance between the two worked really well.

mindslight 15y ago

How is it that Google (et al) does not just fall back on the GPL-licensed OpenJDK? I understand that Oracle has a lot of money to burn on lawyers and other forms of harassment, but why does it seem that the common wisdom (not just this case, but the whole Java community seems generally scared of Oracle) is to completely ignore the generally accepted legal grants of this one specific GPL-licensed project?

justincormack 15y ago
Probably because not all their software is open source. Google would not like having to open source maps and gmail as gpl because the runtime was.
kodablah 15y ago
They have specifically addressed this. By having a GPL-based set of libraries to implement from, they would then be forcing this license to their app developers.
- wmf 15y ago
  The GPL on OpenJDK does not infect apps.
  - kodablah 15y ago
    I understand the classpath exception. But if you look at the opening slides showing evidence Oracle will be presenting [1] (whether taken out of context or not), it specifically states from a Google email: "… and as far as GPL-ing the VM, everything that is linked with the VM would get infected. The problem with GPL in embedded systems is that it’s viral, and there is no way (for example) OEMs or Carriers to differentiate by adding proprietary works. We are building a platform where the entire purpose is to let people differentiate on top of it." So classpath exception aside (and the first OpenJDK release was after Android was started, but before the above quoted email was sent), they were still afraid of infecting their developers. [1] - http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1592541.pdf http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1... Edit: fixed wording

waterlesscloud 15y ago

So the message is pretty clear. No one should ever again build anything on top of Java.

wmf 15y ago
The lawsuit is not about building on top of Java; it's about building JVMs. Sun said all along that if you build a JVM you need to be compatible and in some cases you need to pay.
- jshen 15y ago
  And who in their right mind would want to build software on top of the JVM if what you say is true?
  - wmf 15y ago
    Everyone? People generally like JVMs to be compatible. Since you're not making a specific argument I don't really know how to respond.
    - jshen 15y ago
      What you're implying is that the JVM is a proprietary platform. I think most people have treated the JVM as an open platform all these years (or they trusted Sun to effectively treat it as such), and I bet many of them wouldn't have used it if they'd thought it was a proprietary platform where the only allowed implementations have to be approved by Oracle. You seem to be implying that it's no big deal if it is proprietary. I disagree.
  - kodablah 15y ago
    You could argue that enforcing a TCK before you can legally call your product a Java Virtual Machine helps ensure consistency (whether or not the JVM you write is open source). The real problem is the FOU restrictions in the terms for the TCK to be called a "Java" implementation.
- 15y ago

laconian 15y ago

I wonder if a ruling that favors Oracle will taint JVM-based languages such as Clojure?

edwinnathaniel 15y ago
This has nothing to do with Clojure, JRuby, or Jython at all to my knowledge. To understand why: assume Clojure is just a software running on top of Oracle's JVM. Just like Apache Tomcat.
- laconian 15y ago
  Yes, but the same chilling effect that it would have on adoption of JVM-based solutions could transitively pass on to whatever builds on its stack.

patrickgzill 15y ago

Bryan Cantrill (formerly Sun, then worked for Oracle, now working elsewhere) talks about Oracle in his interesting talk here: http://smartos.org/2011/12/15/fork-yeah-the-rise-and-development-of-illumos-2/ http://smartos.org/2011/12/15/fork-yeah-the-rise-and-develop... He compares Oracle to a lawnmower - if you stick your hand in a mower, it will cut your hand off. Oracle is simple in the way that a mower is simple - a mower cuts what is put in front of the blade. Oracle wants money from whoever they can get it from.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

chaostheory 15y ago

I wonder what would have happened if IBM won the bidding war for Sun instead of Oracle.

rbanffy 15y ago
Both companies have reputations to preserve. Oracle is just preserving theirs.

Agathos 15y ago

I wouldn't answer in his position either. If there's any internal record that he wasn't sure (and how could he be before the trial's over), and if he mentioned it to anyone who isn't a lawyer (no attorney-client privilege), then a definite answer either way invites a perjury charge.