3 ms·

And for those interested, here are Oracle's slides http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1592541.pdf http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/fe

And for those interested, here are Oracle's slides http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1592541.pdf http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1...

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
The rangeCheck slide is somewhat cringeworthy. What are they supposed to do, not throw exceptions when it's outside the range?
- saintfiends 14y ago
  It really is, does that imply that we must obscure things just to be on the safe side, even though it is the most common-sensical thing?
- BrandonM 14y ago
  I thought so, too, at first, but rangeCheck is a private method. It's used in implementing a public API. Calling a non-API method "rangeCheck" and using the same variable names is clear evidence of a non-clean-room implementation, in my opinion. And in the next slide, the engineer even refers to referencing the Sun code.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
    It's also quite possibly from Sun's open-source code, which they surely couldn't be held liable for.
    - BrandonM 14y ago
      That depends entirely on the license.
tseabrooks 14y ago
Oracle's stack talks about all of the companies that DO "license java" for their HW. I assume that all of those companies are licensing the "JVM" but Google wrote their own VM instead of licensing the JVM? Which makes the contention from Oracle that the license is really for the API & the JVM and google's position is they would only need a license if they hadn't written their own VM? I have no opinion on who's right, something better left to lawyers, I'm just trying to have a clear understanding of the positions of each of them.
- howeyc 14y ago
  I may not be correct here, but from what I can see the major point of contention is page 33 of the Oracle slides. "When is license necessary: 1. Write applications on Java - No 2. Write classes that implement Java API - Yes 3. Download Java software components - Yes" I think the stance from Google is that the answer to 2 is NO. And that 3 does not matter since they wrote their own Java software.
  - kodablah 14y ago
    Notice how they conveniently left out Classpath and Harmony from their slides? They both violate #2 and Sun didn't care to sue them.
    - psychotik 14y ago
      Deciding who to sue is up to them though, right? Just because they can doesn't mean they have to. Or does it for this to hold up?
      - mauriciob 14y ago
        IANAL, but I read that you have to sue to protect your property (copyright, brand name, etc). If you don't, you are waiving your rights on it, which is why Google may be using Classpath and Harmony as examples.
        14y ago
johansch 14y ago
The graphical design in there is quite horrible. And the combo of the poor design choices and the dark style seems to scream "evil".
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

And for those interested, here are Oracle's slides http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1592541.pdf http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1...

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago

The rangeCheck slide is somewhat cringeworthy. What are they supposed to do, not throw exceptions when it's outside the range?

saintfiends 14y ago
It really is, does that imply that we must obscure things just to be on the safe side, even though it is the most common-sensical thing?
BrandonM 14y ago
I thought so, too, at first, but rangeCheck is a private method. It's used in implementing a public API. Calling a non-API method "rangeCheck" and using the same variable names is clear evidence of a non-clean-room implementation, in my opinion. And in the next slide, the engineer even refers to referencing the Sun code.
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
  It's also quite possibly from Sun's open-source code, which they surely couldn't be held liable for.
  - BrandonM 14y ago
    That depends entirely on the license.

tseabrooks 14y ago

Oracle's stack talks about all of the companies that DO "license java" for their HW. I assume that all of those companies are licensing the "JVM" but Google wrote their own VM instead of licensing the JVM? Which makes the contention from Oracle that the license is really for the API & the JVM and google's position is they would only need a license if they hadn't written their own VM? I have no opinion on who's right, something better left to lawyers, I'm just trying to have a clear understanding of the positions of each of them.

howeyc 14y ago
I may not be correct here, but from what I can see the major point of contention is page 33 of the Oracle slides. "When is license necessary: 1. Write applications on Java - No 2. Write classes that implement Java API - Yes 3. Download Java software components - Yes" I think the stance from Google is that the answer to 2 is NO. And that 3 does not matter since they wrote their own Java software.
- kodablah 14y ago
  Notice how they conveniently left out Classpath and Harmony from their slides? They both violate #2 and Sun didn't care to sue them.
  - psychotik 14y ago
    Deciding who to sue is up to them though, right? Just because they can doesn't mean they have to. Or does it for this to hold up?
    - mauriciob 14y ago
      IANAL, but I read that you have to sue to protect your property (copyright, brand name, etc). If you don't, you are waiving your rights on it, which is why Google may be using Classpath and Harmony as examples.
      - 14y ago

johansch 14y ago

The graphical design in there is quite horrible. And the combo of the poor design choices and the dark style seems to scream "evil".

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]