3 ms·

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.
- Umofomia 15y ago
  I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but Sun in the past had sued Microsoft due to Microsoft's own JVM implementation, which they asserted was not fully compatible (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine). Microsoft eventually settled and removed its JVM. This case seems somewhat similar.
  - ubernostrum 15y ago
    This case is not similar at all. Sun's objection to Microsoft's JVM was not that they implemented it, but that they implemented something which was clearly not Java (due to incompatibilities/incompleteness/etc.), but which Microsoft called "Java" anyway. At the time, Sun made no claim whatsoever (that I'm aware of) that third parties could not legally implement JVMs. Oracle is now making the claim that third parties cannot implement their own JVMs without paying Oracle for a license, on grounds that copyright to a language or API specification extends to the right to forbid implementations of those specifications.
- ajross 15y ago
  Except when they released that JVM source under the GPL, which quite clearly disallows such extra restrictions. Except that of course Dalvik isn't derived from that source anyway. Which is why the Oracle position is so strange and precarious: they're basically arguing that GPL users of the JDK source have a free license to do things (i.e. make incompatible versions) that people who didn't accept any license to any code ... don't. It's weird. What parts of that clear license to the public are severable from the source distribution?
  - eurleif 15y ago
    >they're basically arguing that GPL users of the JDK source have a free license to do things that people who didn't accept any license to any code ... don't. Well, that's what a license gives you: the right to use something in ways people without the license can't. Dalvik isn't distributed under the GPL, so I don't think any rights derived from the GPL distribution of Java can be used.
    - ajross 15y ago
      But what if it were? What if they re-release Dalvik under the GPL and admit to Oracle, the court and the world that Dalvik is clearly a derivative of the GPL sources from Sun. And then the case gets thrown out, because of the "extra limitations" clause in the license. See why this is so weird? Oracle is arguing something that if taken to its logical conclusion would invalidate the case. So they can't argue it too far: Dalvik's success (in the market sense) has to be derived from Oracle's IP, but not so much to as to be a derived work (in the copyright sense) of the Java code. That's an awfully fine line.
Estragon 15y ago
Oracle has certainly disgraced itself with this case, but as the article makes plain on the first page there is a clear legal basis for assuming that Java development is safe from Oracle's interference in almost all use cases.

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.
Umofomia 15y ago
I haven't seen this mentioned yet, but Sun in the past had sued Microsoft due to Microsoft's own JVM implementation, which they asserted was not fully compatible (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Java_Virtual_Machine). Microsoft eventually settled and removed its JVM. This case seems somewhat similar.
- ubernostrum 15y ago
  This case is not similar at all. Sun's objection to Microsoft's JVM was not that they implemented it, but that they implemented something which was clearly not Java (due to incompatibilities/incompleteness/etc.), but which Microsoft called "Java" anyway. At the time, Sun made no claim whatsoever (that I'm aware of) that third parties could not legally implement JVMs. Oracle is now making the claim that third parties cannot implement their own JVMs without paying Oracle for a license, on grounds that copyright to a language or API specification extends to the right to forbid implementations of those specifications.
ajross 15y ago
Except when they released that JVM source under the GPL, which quite clearly disallows such extra restrictions. Except that of course Dalvik isn't derived from that source anyway. Which is why the Oracle position is so strange and precarious: they're basically arguing that GPL users of the JDK source have a free license to do things (i.e. make incompatible versions) that people who didn't accept any license to any code ... don't. It's weird. What parts of that clear license to the public are severable from the source distribution?
- eurleif 15y ago
  >they're basically arguing that GPL users of the JDK source have a free license to do things that people who didn't accept any license to any code ... don't. Well, that's what a license gives you: the right to use something in ways people without the license can't. Dalvik isn't distributed under the GPL, so I don't think any rights derived from the GPL distribution of Java can be used.
  - ajross 15y ago
    But what if it were? What if they re-release Dalvik under the GPL and admit to Oracle, the court and the world that Dalvik is clearly a derivative of the GPL sources from Sun. And then the case gets thrown out, because of the "extra limitations" clause in the license. See why this is so weird? Oracle is arguing something that if taken to its logical conclusion would invalidate the case. So they can't argue it too far: Dalvik's success (in the market sense) has to be derived from Oracle's IP, but not so much to as to be a derived work (in the copyright sense) of the Java code. That's an awfully fine line.

Estragon 15y ago

Oracle has certainly disgraced itself with this case, but as the article makes plain on the first page there is a clear legal basis for assuming that Java development is safe from Oracle's interference in almost all use cases.