Oracle: no license for Android's Harmony friend Oracle will never grant a license to Project Harmony, the open source Java implementation. Oracle told a closed meeting of Java's leaders from major companies and organizations that such a move would damage the future of Java, according to a source close to Java's governing body. The meeting took place in Bonn, Germany, …
As I understand it, the only way Sun (and now Oracle) makes any money off of Java is buy licensing it.
Everything is open, except the test kits (TCK's) that you need to get your version of Java certified. Those you have to pay Oracle for. That means you can create your own java implementation without paying Oracle. And Oracle is suing to say that you can't create your own java implementation and call it something else.
If the TCK's were open source, and Harmony went forward, how would Oracle be able to make money off of Java? Harmony would be a fully open end run. Everybody that is paying wants this. Everybody that is getting paid (Sun, then Oracle) don't want this.
When Oracle didn't own Java, they felt differently. After they spent a ton of dough to buy Java, they are trying to continue making money from Java. And why wouldn't they?
'There ain't no such thing as a free lunch'
Of course Oracle and Sun were in it for the money. Sun saw Java as a loss leader for their hardware. They didn't understand how to monetize Java but weren't stupid enough to leave everything open.
Its the attitude that corporations are going to give away free stuff with no strings attached is insanely naive.
IBM helped to create Eclipse under Apache's license because it allowed them to slurp up all of the contributed software and use what they want in their paid for software.What IBM didn't realize was that in doing so, people would rather use the free Eclipse rather than the extra add on kit that cost $$$.
Why do you think that IBM only gives away a 'free' version of Hadoop on 32bit Linux requiring a 32 bit JVM?
Some bean counter said "We're losing money on x" rather than more accurately phrasing it "We could make money we have not been making before on x".
Simple and typical.
Why are 3 of the richest men in the world owners of IT companies and yet most people are not completely happy with computers and technology (outside of techies who read el reg.)?
Also can we have an Ellison icon please.
Heaven knows why Microsoft and Google get such a beating in the mainstream press when Larry Ellison is one of the most odious individuals to walk the face of the Earth. Microsoft may be incapable, but it at least tries to innovate, at which Google is rather successful. Oracle successfully seeks monopolies and then squeezes - innovation is the opposite of what it is about. The purchase of Sun looks increasingly inspired from the perspective of Oracle shareholders, but depressing in the extreme for all others. The influence that Oracle has been able to bring to bear on the once mighty IBM is the greatest illustration.
Then again, Oracle's monopoly will be lazy, and provide others with the opportunity to innovate, particularly on the mobile platform, where Oracle's plans are deeply flawed. Maybe Google is rich and brave enough.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
