3 ms·

Except that iOS is based on Unix, and the freedom to re-implement copyrighted Unix APIs was litigated and won. What if SCO/Novell/USL/whoever owns the Unix copy

Except that iOS is based on Unix, and the freedom to re-implement copyrighted Unix APIs was litigated and won. What if SCO/Novell/USL/whoever owns the Unix copyrights now, comes back and sues anyone reimplementing them? That includes OSX and iOS which are dependent on Unix compatibility. Also, what's being litigated here is not Java-the-language but Java-the-core-API-interfaces. You could refactor your way out of those, just provide alternate versions of java.io, java.lang, etc, new redesigned core APIs. It would break core Java compatibility, but Android is so big, most people would port their Java libraries, and in the end, Oracle would be hurt more, since they rely far more on server-side Java, but most of the world's Java programmers would be migrating to writing mobile apps, probably with non-Java backends, or Java + new Core APIs.

super_mario 13y ago
Except UNIX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix is owned by "The Open Group" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group One of its purposes is to provide Single Unix Specification (SUS) certification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification Mac OS X is SUS v3 certified (I don't think iOS is) and can call itself UNIX, and there is 0 danger of anyone suing you for implementing POSIX API or SUS. You just can not claim you are providing a UNIX without getting certified. This is why Linux is UNIX-like OS and not a UNIX.
- cromwellian 13y ago
  You're confusing Trademark with Copyright. The Open Group owns the Unix trademark, it does not own the API. The fact that POSIX uses the API does not mean any claims to "structure, sequence, organization" of the APIs or command line utilities are invalid. This has never been litigated before. Past UNIX copyright wars were fought over copying actual code between Unix and clones. No one has ever tested whether API reimplementation of Unix is copyrighted. Implementing as public spec won't save you. Java has a public, open, specification and was clean-room reimplemented in much the same way that Linux is not Unix, Android Java is not Java. Claiming there is 0 danger in being sued sounds like naively wishful thinking, especially with Apple's deep pockets, there are plenty of lawyers out there looking for ways to crack that nut.
  - maxlybbert 13y ago
    The Open Group own both the UNIX trademark and the POSIX spec. They used to demand a lot of money for copies of the spec, but you can get it online for free nowadays ( https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/catalog/G101 https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/catalog/G101 is a good place to start). They put copyright notices on the spec, but (at least until this ruling) that was widely believed to only apply to the description of what functions needed to do, and not to the function declarations.
    - stormbrew 13y ago
      Is it clear that The Open Group or IEEE actually have a clear right to claim copyright of the POSIX api given this ruling? Were they assigned or licensed that copyright by AT&T or any of its successors? It seems likely enough that in the 80s this was not seen as necessary, and the old guard of UNIX implementers were still being quite belligerent towards each other at the time, afaik.
      - maxlybbert 13y ago
        I believe the Open Group was assigned whatever copyright AT&T had when the Open Group was created.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
cwyers 13y ago
IIRC, one of Oracle's points of contention is that Google is intentionally not being compatible with Java; they picked certain parts of the API they wanted to support, but it's not a full implementation of the Java APIs, and so conforming Java apps are not necessarily able to run.
- cromwellian 13y ago
  The full Java spec includes tons of Desktop code for Desktop Widgets, CORBA APIs, and all kinds of insane stuff that makes no sense on a smart phone and isn't used by 90% of Java developers who mostly work on the server side. Oracle's claims here are rather ridiculous, and even Oracle doesn't believe Swing or J2ME apps are appropriate for today's smartphones. It's a red herring of compatibility that no one cares about or wants to be compatible with.
  - cwyers 13y ago
    A lot of the discussion in this thread is about what this sort of ruling means for people making compatible implementations of other people's APIs -- Unix, the PC BIOS, etc. But that's not what Google was intending to do here, they were using part of Oracle's Java tech to build their own, incompatible application format.
    - cromwellian 13y ago
      They're using Java "The Good Parts", the subset of Java that is platform neutral that most people use. By the time Android was launched, Java on the Desktop was already dead. Practically zero people write Java desktop apps not care about compatibility with them, the vast majority of Java code prior to Android lived in the cloud. What makes Java valuable to most developers is byte-code portability, the widespread use of the language, the core APIs (not the GUI), and the developer tool chain. The Sun licenses for Java go back to a time when they had a dream to displace Windows on the Desktop with all native desktop apps written in Java. That reality was delusional, but Java succeeded brilliantly on the server.
AnimalMuppet 13y ago
> Except that iOS is based on Unix, and the freedom to re-implement copyrighted Unix APIs was litigated and won. Not quite. The freedom to re-implement Unix APIs was litigated. If I recall correctly, it was settled rather than won (that is, there was not a court decision but rather a settlement agreement).

super_mario 13y ago

Except UNIX http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix is owned by "The Open Group" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Group One of its purposes is to provide Single Unix Specification (SUS) certification. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification Mac OS X is SUS v3 certified (I don't think iOS is) and can call itself UNIX, and there is 0 danger of anyone suing you for implementing POSIX API or SUS. You just can not claim you are providing a UNIX without getting certified. This is why Linux is UNIX-like OS and not a UNIX.

cromwellian 13y ago
You're confusing Trademark with Copyright. The Open Group owns the Unix trademark, it does not own the API. The fact that POSIX uses the API does not mean any claims to "structure, sequence, organization" of the APIs or command line utilities are invalid. This has never been litigated before. Past UNIX copyright wars were fought over copying actual code between Unix and clones. No one has ever tested whether API reimplementation of Unix is copyrighted. Implementing as public spec won't save you. Java has a public, open, specification and was clean-room reimplemented in much the same way that Linux is not Unix, Android Java is not Java. Claiming there is 0 danger in being sued sounds like naively wishful thinking, especially with Apple's deep pockets, there are plenty of lawyers out there looking for ways to crack that nut.
- maxlybbert 13y ago
  The Open Group own both the UNIX trademark and the POSIX spec. They used to demand a lot of money for copies of the spec, but you can get it online for free nowadays ( https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/catalog/G101 https://www2.opengroup.org/ogsys/catalog/G101 is a good place to start). They put copyright notices on the spec, but (at least until this ruling) that was widely believed to only apply to the description of what functions needed to do, and not to the function declarations.
  - stormbrew 13y ago
    Is it clear that The Open Group or IEEE actually have a clear right to claim copyright of the POSIX api given this ruling? Were they assigned or licensed that copyright by AT&T or any of its successors? It seems likely enough that in the 80s this was not seen as necessary, and the old guard of UNIX implementers were still being quite belligerent towards each other at the time, afaik.
    - maxlybbert 13y ago
      I believe the Open Group was assigned whatever copyright AT&T had when the Open Group was created.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

cwyers 13y ago

IIRC, one of Oracle's points of contention is that Google is intentionally not being compatible with Java; they picked certain parts of the API they wanted to support, but it's not a full implementation of the Java APIs, and so conforming Java apps are not necessarily able to run.

cromwellian 13y ago
The full Java spec includes tons of Desktop code for Desktop Widgets, CORBA APIs, and all kinds of insane stuff that makes no sense on a smart phone and isn't used by 90% of Java developers who mostly work on the server side. Oracle's claims here are rather ridiculous, and even Oracle doesn't believe Swing or J2ME apps are appropriate for today's smartphones. It's a red herring of compatibility that no one cares about or wants to be compatible with.
- cwyers 13y ago
  A lot of the discussion in this thread is about what this sort of ruling means for people making compatible implementations of other people's APIs -- Unix, the PC BIOS, etc. But that's not what Google was intending to do here, they were using part of Oracle's Java tech to build their own, incompatible application format.
  - cromwellian 13y ago
    They're using Java "The Good Parts", the subset of Java that is platform neutral that most people use. By the time Android was launched, Java on the Desktop was already dead. Practically zero people write Java desktop apps not care about compatibility with them, the vast majority of Java code prior to Android lived in the cloud. What makes Java valuable to most developers is byte-code portability, the widespread use of the language, the core APIs (not the GUI), and the developer tool chain. The Sun licenses for Java go back to a time when they had a dream to displace Windows on the Desktop with all native desktop apps written in Java. That reality was delusional, but Java succeeded brilliantly on the server.

AnimalMuppet 13y ago

> Except that iOS is based on Unix, and the freedom to re-implement copyrighted Unix APIs was litigated and won. Not quite. The freedom to re-implement Unix APIs was litigated. If I recall correctly, it was settled rather than won (that is, there was not a court decision but rather a settlement agreement).