6 ms·

Java, is it the thing they used to sue on API copyright? Good demonstration of how to mess with "open-source" IMO. If you remove what they got from Sun, what r

by Joky 12y ago

Java, is it the thing they used to sue on API copyright? Good demonstration of how to mess with "open-source" IMO. If you remove what they got from Sun, what reminds?

suyash 12y ago
That is a different topic altogether. I'm referring to Open JDK. Ever heard of the fasted embedded database engine called Berkeley DB. Doesn't matter came from where, Sun or what ever is still being developed and contributed in the open source environment.
- Joky 12y ago
  I disagree, it matters because acquiring a technology that has an existing open-source community (that can fork your codebase...) is not the same things as releasing your internally developed technology as open-source and build a community around. Looking at OpenOffice or MySQL, it does not seem that Oracle had a great success with open-source communities. And the Java topic is not different altogether, it is disturbing to claim to be "open-source friendly" when you release an open-source implementation for the JVM but sue on the basis that the API is copyrighted. What is off-topic it talking about Oracle at all in this thread ;-)
- feld 12y ago
  I hope you're joking. BerkleyDB is a mess. From Wikipedia: ----- Oracle Corporation makes versions 2.0 and higher of Berkeley DB available under a dual license.[15] The sleepycat license license is a 2-clause BSD license with an additional copyleft clause similar to the GNU GPL version 2's Section 3, requiring source code of an application using Berkeley DB to be made available for a nominal fee. As of Berkeley DB release 6.0, the Oracle Corporation has relicensed Berkeley DB under the GNU AGPL v3.[16] As of July 2011, Oracle's list price for non-copyleft Berkeley DB licenses varies between 900 and 13,800 USD per processor. -----
  - duskwuff 12y ago
    That's the AGPL, mind you. One of the most ridiculous and restrictive "open-source" licenses created; it's not really intended to be applied to libraries, and is incompatible with every other license in existence, including even the standard GPL. Applying it to a library makes the open-source version effectively unusable. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
pjmlp 12y ago
Sun would have sued Google if they had the money for the lawyers[0]. Initially I was partnering with Google, but now I side with Oracle's decision, as it is now proven how Google just pulled a Microsoft and fragmented the Java eco-system. Now we are stuck with partial Java 7 assuming 4.4 devices, good luck using try-with resources in lower versions and no plan for future versions as of the Android Developers Fireside at Google IO 2014. The Android team seems more interested in porting the whole Eclipse/Ant infrastructure, building more Google APIs or making Android run everywhere instead of improving the language support. [0] http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/my_attitude_on_oracle_v#comments http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/my_attitude_on_oracle...
- pyre 12y ago
  > Initially I was partnering with Google, but now I side with Oracle's decision, as it is now proven how Google just pulled a Microsoft and fragmented the Java eco-system. I'm not sure that's a good enough reason so say that it's "ok" to claim that an API is copyrightable. The idea that I might have to ask someone permission just to make API-compatible alternate implementation seems ridiculous.
- magicalist 12y ago
  > Sun would have sued Google if they had the money for the lawyers[0]. Actually: > Just because Sun didn't have patent suits in our genetic code doesn't mean we didn't feel wronged implies just the opposite. The rest of your post has nothing to do with whether APIs should be copyrightable or not.
- baldfat 12y ago
  Actually another post on Sun wouldn't have sued. Sun's CEO Jonathan Schwartz testified on behave of Google. He even blogged a congratulations to Google for releasing Android running Java. http://web.archive.org/web/20101023072550/http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/congratulations_google http://web.archive.org/web/20101023072550/http://blogs.sun.c... http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/26/2977858/former-sun-ceo-jonathan-schwartz-testifies-for-google-oracle-trial http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/26/2977858/former-sun-ceo-jon...
yellowapple 12y ago
MySQL, which - as one of the worst victims of Oracle's sidaM Touch - ended up being forked into MariaDB, and is now effectively irrelevant outside of legacy deployments since anyone who knows what they're doing has switched to PostgreSQL and anyone who doesn't know what they're doing has switched to MongoDB. MySQL as packaged by Oracle is quite literally a corpse. MariaDB is a reanimated corpse. And such is the tale of an open-source product acquired by a multi-billion-dollar company who made those multiple billions of dollars entirely on selling a commercial product against which the open-source product competed. Competition-elimination-by-acquisition at its finest.
- SEJeff 12y ago
  "MariaDB is a reanimated corpse" - Citation Needed Looks like to me, like it is far from a corpse: https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commits/10.1 https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commits/10.1 I agree with you on both PostgreSQL and MongoDB, but saying MariaDB is a corpse is ignorant at best.
  - yellowapple 12y ago
    That would be the "reanimated" part of "reanimated corpse"; I think you've significantly misinterpreted my point there. MariaDB is not dead; it's undead. A zombie. Or perhaps resurrected and now serving as a database messiah. Whatever the case, it's the end-result of something that's dead (MySQL) no longer being dead.
s73v3r 12y ago
Open source doesn't mean you get to ignore the license.
- suyash 12y ago
  Exactly folks are confused between freeware and open source software.

by Joky 12y ago

Java, is it the thing they used to sue on API copyright? Good demonstration of how to mess with "open-source" IMO. If you remove what they got from Sun, what reminds?

suyash 12y ago

That is a different topic altogether. I'm referring to Open JDK. Ever heard of the fasted embedded database engine called Berkeley DB. Doesn't matter came from where, Sun or what ever is still being developed and contributed in the open source environment.

Joky 12y ago
I disagree, it matters because acquiring a technology that has an existing open-source community (that can fork your codebase...) is not the same things as releasing your internally developed technology as open-source and build a community around. Looking at OpenOffice or MySQL, it does not seem that Oracle had a great success with open-source communities. And the Java topic is not different altogether, it is disturbing to claim to be "open-source friendly" when you release an open-source implementation for the JVM but sue on the basis that the API is copyrighted. What is off-topic it talking about Oracle at all in this thread ;-)
feld 12y ago
I hope you're joking. BerkleyDB is a mess. From Wikipedia: ----- Oracle Corporation makes versions 2.0 and higher of Berkeley DB available under a dual license.[15] The sleepycat license license is a 2-clause BSD license with an additional copyleft clause similar to the GNU GPL version 2's Section 3, requiring source code of an application using Berkeley DB to be made available for a nominal fee. As of Berkeley DB release 6.0, the Oracle Corporation has relicensed Berkeley DB under the GNU AGPL v3.[16] As of July 2011, Oracle's list price for non-copyleft Berkeley DB licenses varies between 900 and 13,800 USD per processor. -----
- duskwuff 12y ago
  That's the AGPL, mind you. One of the most ridiculous and restrictive "open-source" licenses created; it's not really intended to be applied to libraries, and is incompatible with every other license in existence, including even the standard GPL. Applying it to a library makes the open-source version effectively unusable. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html

pjmlp 12y ago

Sun would have sued Google if they had the money for the lawyers[0]. Initially I was partnering with Google, but now I side with Oracle's decision, as it is now proven how Google just pulled a Microsoft and fragmented the Java eco-system. Now we are stuck with partial Java 7 assuming 4.4 devices, good luck using try-with resources in lower versions and no plan for future versions as of the Android Developers Fireside at Google IO 2014. The Android team seems more interested in porting the whole Eclipse/Ant infrastructure, building more Google APIs or making Android run everywhere instead of improving the language support. [0] http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/my_attitude_on_oracle_v#comments http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/my_attitude_on_oracle...

pyre 12y ago
> Initially I was partnering with Google, but now I side with Oracle's decision, as it is now proven how Google just pulled a Microsoft and fragmented the Java eco-system. I'm not sure that's a good enough reason so say that it's "ok" to claim that an API is copyrightable. The idea that I might have to ask someone permission just to make API-compatible alternate implementation seems ridiculous.
magicalist 12y ago
> Sun would have sued Google if they had the money for the lawyers[0]. Actually: > Just because Sun didn't have patent suits in our genetic code doesn't mean we didn't feel wronged implies just the opposite. The rest of your post has nothing to do with whether APIs should be copyrightable or not.
baldfat 12y ago
Actually another post on Sun wouldn't have sued. Sun's CEO Jonathan Schwartz testified on behave of Google. He even blogged a congratulations to Google for releasing Android running Java. http://web.archive.org/web/20101023072550/http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/congratulations_google http://web.archive.org/web/20101023072550/http://blogs.sun.c... http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/26/2977858/former-sun-ceo-jonathan-schwartz-testifies-for-google-oracle-trial http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/26/2977858/former-sun-ceo-jon...

yellowapple 12y ago

MySQL, which - as one of the worst victims of Oracle's sidaM Touch - ended up being forked into MariaDB, and is now effectively irrelevant outside of legacy deployments since anyone who knows what they're doing has switched to PostgreSQL and anyone who doesn't know what they're doing has switched to MongoDB. MySQL as packaged by Oracle is quite literally a corpse. MariaDB is a reanimated corpse. And such is the tale of an open-source product acquired by a multi-billion-dollar company who made those multiple billions of dollars entirely on selling a commercial product against which the open-source product competed. Competition-elimination-by-acquisition at its finest.

SEJeff 12y ago
"MariaDB is a reanimated corpse" - Citation Needed Looks like to me, like it is far from a corpse: https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commits/10.1 https://github.com/MariaDB/server/commits/10.1 I agree with you on both PostgreSQL and MongoDB, but saying MariaDB is a corpse is ignorant at best.
- yellowapple 12y ago
  That would be the "reanimated" part of "reanimated corpse"; I think you've significantly misinterpreted my point there. MariaDB is not dead; it's undead. A zombie. Or perhaps resurrected and now serving as a database messiah. Whatever the case, it's the end-result of something that's dead (MySQL) no longer being dead.

s73v3r 12y ago

Open source doesn't mean you get to ignore the license.

suyash 12y ago
Exactly folks are confused between freeware and open source software.