4 ms·
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 wro
by tseabrooks 15y 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 15y agoI 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 15y agoNotice how they conveniently left out Classpath and Harmony from their slides? They both violate #2 and Sun didn't care to sue them.
- psychotik 15y agoDeciding 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 15y agoIANAL, 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.