5 ms·

> But that is precisely what copyrighting APIs will achieve, a monopoly on computer languages, because without the APIs, as one witness told the court in Oracle

> But that is precisely what copyrighting APIs will achieve, a monopoly on computer languages, because without the APIs, as one witness told the court in Oracle v. Google, Java is blind and deaf. It can't be used for much, if anything. Even "Hello World" requires APIs That's just not true. You can create your own classes for IO, or anything else, implemented as native methods. The only problem you have is if you want to copy the whole structure, sequence, and organization of Sun's API that Sun designed. For instance if you want the use the C library functions to implement your new Java classes, that's fine since you aren't copying the SSO of them. I think a lot of people have to jump to these 'sky is falling' 'it'll break the internet' arguments because they refuse to accept that Google is the bad apple here. Google copied Sun's work, didn't pay Sun for it, and at the same time destroyed Sun's future revenue from Java licenses (as everybody just used Android for free). This was probably a significant factor in the decision to sell Sun (the Schwartz mentioned for instance that some companies were not renewing their Java license). But this is capitalism not morality, and when somebody else creates something you want you pay them for it. That's really the issue here, Google used Sun's work and didn't pay.

lucian1900 14y ago
Have you paid for using libc? posix? HTTP? x86? winapi? All designed by someone other than yourself. API compatibility is exactly as important as language compatibility.
bad_user 14y ago
You can also come up with your own words to replace those of the English language, while continuing to use the same grammar, but that won't be English anymore, with the proof being that nobody will understand what you're saying. This is exactly what a standard API provides for a language ... the standard vocabulary of that language, without which that language is no longer the same language. The distinction itself between the standard API and Java the language simply does not exist and never in Java's history was the API pushed out of context when Sun/Oracle referred to Java ... quite the contrary, to pass the TCK and be able to use the "Java" trademark, then you have to implement those APIs. I invite you to watch the presentation of Guy Steele (one of Java's designers) on "Growing a Language" ... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8860158196198824415 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8860158196198824415 they refuse to accept that Google is the bad apple here The lawsuit barely started and you've got to prove first that Google is the bad apple here. Quite the contrary, it doesn't look good for Oracle. I do think that people side with Google on this one because otherwise it would open a huge can of worms, as other useful projects on which we rely on could cease to exist. This is not fanboyism, but rather self-preservation. Google copied Sun's work, didn't pay Sun for it, and at the same time destroyed Sun's future revenue from Java licenses This sentence made me laugh, because Sun destroyed its own future revenue by being incapable of releasing anything that comes close to Android. Sun destroyed its own future because of its own incompetence. As I view it, Google helped Sun because Android is keeping Java fresh and relevant. But this is capitalism not morality Well, actually, true capitalism excludes government-granted monopolies, because that goes against the concept of the free market. And copyright and patent protections are just that, government granted monopolies promoted by people and companies that rely on legislature to keep them relevant, instead of building and selling stuff to customers. It's also funny that you bring the issue of "morality" into discussion, as arguments based on morality are often used to justify these government-granted monopolies, contrary to the law of the fittest that applies to the free market, which is immoral and unforgiving.

lucian1900 14y ago

Have you paid for using libc? posix? HTTP? x86? winapi? All designed by someone other than yourself. API compatibility is exactly as important as language compatibility.

bad_user 14y ago

You can also come up with your own words to replace those of the English language, while continuing to use the same grammar, but that won't be English anymore, with the proof being that nobody will understand what you're saying. This is exactly what a standard API provides for a language ... the standard vocabulary of that language, without which that language is no longer the same language. The distinction itself between the standard API and Java the language simply does not exist and never in Java's history was the API pushed out of context when Sun/Oracle referred to Java ... quite the contrary, to pass the TCK and be able to use the "Java" trademark, then you have to implement those APIs. I invite you to watch the presentation of Guy Steele (one of Java's designers) on "Growing a Language" ... http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8860158196198824415 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8860158196198824415 they refuse to accept that Google is the bad apple here The lawsuit barely started and you've got to prove first that Google is the bad apple here. Quite the contrary, it doesn't look good for Oracle. I do think that people side with Google on this one because otherwise it would open a huge can of worms, as other useful projects on which we rely on could cease to exist. This is not fanboyism, but rather self-preservation. Google copied Sun's work, didn't pay Sun for it, and at the same time destroyed Sun's future revenue from Java licenses This sentence made me laugh, because Sun destroyed its own future revenue by being incapable of releasing anything that comes close to Android. Sun destroyed its own future because of its own incompetence. As I view it, Google helped Sun because Android is keeping Java fresh and relevant. But this is capitalism not morality Well, actually, true capitalism excludes government-granted monopolies, because that goes against the concept of the free market. And copyright and patent protections are just that, government granted monopolies promoted by people and companies that rely on legislature to keep them relevant, instead of building and selling stuff to customers. It's also funny that you bring the issue of "morality" into discussion, as arguments based on morality are often used to justify these government-granted monopolies, contrary to the law of the fittest that applies to the free market, which is immoral and unforgiving.