48 publicly visible posts • joined 4 Jun 2009

Why Oracle will win its Java copyright case – and why you'll be glad when it does


Why would it be fair use? Is it transformative? Is it for academic use? Is it even interoperable?

Kraftwerk versus a cheesy copycat: How did the copycat win?


derivative bad??

And yet it's ok to copy declaring code because...? Oh, right, it's transformative, or something. Or maybe because the JLS is free? Or Java is free? Some consistency would be appreciated.

A derivative song gets an editorial lambasting the notion, but derivative software, not so much, because, err, why? Oh, right, Ellison.

Supreme Court ignores Google's whinging in Java copyright suit


Re: I wonder if the Supreme Court understood the issue?

Are you really advocating that if *you* develop a unique and new API under the GPL that someone else can re-implement that API and tweak it without paying you a dime? Leaving aside trivial examples, like a sort method.


Exactly hits the nail on the head. But let's examine your assertion: that Java isn't worth billions. Ok, what would've been the cost for Google to have invented a language of their own in the required timeframe? Secondly, what would've been the opportunity cost in *losing* "compatability" with Java?

Seriously, put a dollar figure on that, WAG, and let's go from there.

The appeals court addressed the second point quite thoroughly, that Google made a conscience choice to bypass the GPL *for money*. Which is fine, then pay Sun/Oracle. They chose not to do that, either. Now, they've got to bit the bullet.

The ONLY positive news in this whole nonsense is that GOOGLE HAS FORKED OPENJDK like they should've from the get go. (Which is also what the appeals court pointed out.)

Google brews a fresh pot of Oracle's OpenJDK Java for future Android


Re: FOU: Field of Use Restrictions was the original sticking point.

It's contentious to claim that Harmony was legitimately reverse engineered, but, even granting that, what would be the point?

Sun, very pointedly, chose the GPL, and not some other license when they released their code.

This, also, was the same license, not coincidentally, which MySQL chose for dual-licensing. There are some very good reasons to choose the GPL over the ASL.

This lawsuit shows exactly that Google's intentions were never honorable. They never, in court, claimed to have reverse engineered Java. Outside of court, they seem to make that a PR move, but not in court. The appeals court referenced the amicus brief from a retired Registrar of Copyrights, Ralph Oman, IIRC, who pointed out that all Google had to do was to reverse engineer the 37 packages in question.

ALL GOOGLE HAD TO DO WAS TO ACTUALLY REVERSE ENGINEER. That's exactly what the appeals court quoted, and it just gets overlooked. Even granting that Harmony was reverse engineered, which is a contentious claim, it wasn't complete.

And, then, back to GPL versus ASL, why use Harmony anyhow? Why not use the GPL code from the get go?

All of these moves demonstrate, quite clearly, the bad intentions of Google.

Oracle waves fist, claims even new Android devices infringe its Java copyrights


Re: Apache Harmony

If Dalvik were a clean room implementation, then there wouldn't be a problem.

Did you read the appeals court decision? They pointed out this as an option, and note that Google didn't reverse engineer.

If you want to make the case that Dalvik is a clean room implementation, go ahead. Wikipedia says:

" Google says that Dalvik is a clean-room implementation rather than a development on top of a standard Java runtime, which would mean it does not inherit copyright-based license restrictions from either the standard-edition or open-source-edition Java runtimes.[19] Oracle and some reviewers dispute this.[20]"

The appeals court said "nope".


Re: Apache Harmony

It has everything to do with copyright. Harmony is immune from legal threat exactly because it's reverse engineered.

Certainly, Dalvik uses Harmony, and that's great.

However, Dalvik also used just regular ol' copying, and that ain't so legal. The appeals court pointed out that the GPL was available as an option. It's fine that Google didn't choose the GPL, but, if they wanted to to use the ASL, they should've actually reverse engineered everything.

Google claims that some (Harmony) was reverse engineered.

There's no claim that everything was reverse engineered. Harmony, is therefore, a total red herring in this argument. It's the parts not in Harmony which are at issue.


Re: WTF?

Keep in mind that Dalvik wasn't under the GPL at all, but under the ASL. Google made a business decision, which is fine, but not legal. They could've just used Apache Harmony, but it was too expensive to actually reverse engineer. cheaper to copy.


Re: perhaps I'm an idiot...

The appeals court specifically quoted ?ralph Orman?, the former US register/registrar of copyrights, who filed an amicus brief. In that brief, he stated that all Google had to do was to follow the GPL. The appeals court noted this.

By following the GPL, there can be complaints regarding copyright. Because, by definition, that's using, or employing, the copyright license through the GPL.

Google v Oracle: US Supreme Court turns to Obama in Java copyright war


Re: Java was open sourced

Google never claimed that Dalvik was clean room. If it were, there'd be no case. Read the appeals court decision, they cover this exact point.


Re: Turkeys voting for Christmas

open up java? how open do you want it? java is open source already! Sun did that ages ago. OpenJDK is under the GPL...

Google didn't like the GPL, that's all. which is fine, go ahead and use harmony...



no, it doesn't do the same thing. it's not compatible.


the key distinction here is that dalvik wasn't reverse engineered.

Google's Dart on target to replace JavaScript? That'll be the day


Re: Google is a special case

They already have that, in the form of Google WebTookit. I believe the motivation for GWT was to **reduce** the variety of languages. If this is just going to get translated to JavaScript, then it's a replacement for GWT, not JavaScript. Maybe related to Android/Snoracle/Java?


Re: just because it has Google's backing would be a mistake

It really depends on how Google goes about it. If everything is well documented and licensed for open source, great. A plugin for the main browsers across different operating systems? Sounds good. At worst, it's an annoyance to install another plugin to make something work.

I think it's re-inventing the wheel, but that's ok. If it kills JavaScript, awesome -- but unlikely.

Exploits no more! Firefox 26 blocks all Java plugins by default


Re: About time.

I wonder about all these exploits. Are they really exploits on Windows, and then Sun/Oracle has to go in and fix the VM to protect the underlying OS? That is, are these exploits also in the Unix, Linux and MacOS VM's?

'Copyrighted' Java APIs deserve same protection as HARRY POTTER, Oracle tells court


Why not just license under the GPL?

"Sun Develops A Licensing Regime To Foster A Community And Ensure Compatibility

Although Oracle owns the copyright on Java SE and the corresponding packages, Oracle encourages their use by others—both a vast community of programmers writing clever apps and businesses developing proprietary and competing products. To accommodate all comers, Sun/Oracle offers three different licenses:

(1) The General Public License (“GPL”) is free of charge..."


Case: 13-1021 Document: 43 Filed: 02/11/2013

Facebook to share home addresses, phone numbers


mothers maiden name

All they need is to access your mothers FB page, and they have it without even asking!

Oracle: 'Eight Android files are decompiled Oracle code'


Source is GPL, or ASF?

@Do Not Fold Spindle Mutilate err, you've got the whole thing backwards. Is the original code GPL of ASL? If it's GPL, then why is the Google code under the ASL?

It's ironic that you use the "fail" icon, because you've failed completely in understanding the problem: you can't just take GPL code and slap an ASL on it. If thats what Google did, if, as your statements indicate happened, then the code is really GPL. When you remove the GPL boilerplate bad things happen.

Once you break the conditions of the GPL, you lose patent protection as well. That's, basically, Oracle's argument. You may think you're supporting Google, but your argument *actually* supports Oracle's contention: that the code was copyrighted. All Google had to do was to keep the GPL boilerplate and there wouldn't be a problem.

Which raises the bigger question, of why Google didn't just fork OpenJDK -- much easier. However, any such fork would, naturally, be under the GPL and *not* the ASL.

I think this is just a case of a business (Google) deciding that the ASL is preferable, and then a mix-up. However, the facts, as you present them, make that a really expensive case of copyright infringement (and patent, as well, because when you drop the GPL you lose patent protection).

Penguin for the GPL :)

Apple vanishes Java from Mac OS X Lion


security? can you say "package manager"?

@Bill Colemen: while, then why don't Apple just use a package manager which updates apps? I mean, that's the logical conclusion to the whole "walled garden" they have. Simply apply the same logic from their portable devices (?iOS?) to regular mac's and be done with it.

By the by, .NET requires updates, just like Java. Should Apple come out with their own VM, to better achieve total lock-in, I'm sure it, too, will require updates.

Google Apps boss says cloud computing is your destiny


Huge powerpoint?

"There they will experience bottlenecks in accessing their huge PowerPoints, 4GB emails and have a few system outages inconveniencing the CEO."

err, have you used Google Doc's? That 4GB e-mail isn't a problem since it's, well, in the cloud. Kinda the point.

In and of itself, that's enough that everyone in the world should switch over to some sorta cloud (intranet?) for company doc's! That being said, restricting the interface to what a browser can do is silly.


1.) no 4GB e-mails getting passed around

2.) no "oops, lost the file"/crash/whatever from users

3.) platform independent! (well, Firefox compatible, let's say)

4.) similar to #1, no virus attachments



the "cloud" can be local....

Oracle floats Java EE for cloud


Oracle broke the JCP's rules by refusing to grant Apache a license

"However, since the release of OpenJDK, a specific license allow to run the JCK in the OpenJDK context, that is for any GPL implementation deriving substantially from OpenJDK [4][5]." -wikipedia

I dunno, the assertion that Oracle broke rules seems a bit contentious. If they broke a rule, then why no lawsuit to that effect? Many companies, to take one, IBM, would like to see Java under the ASL.

Or, maybe there's suck a JCP rule (or was, I dunno). I, perhaps, naively, thought that Sun/Oracle could pretty much do as they please within the JCP and the TCK. If not...

SourceForge applies global password reset after hack attack


wrong e-mail

errr, if it's linked to the wrong account then, err, PEBKAC?

W3C apologizes for HTML5 brand confusion



whatever happened to xhtml? I thought that was because, well, it was xml.

Skype's mega-FAIL: exec cops to cause


open source VoIP

but how would you make a call to a PSTN? The client is, or will be, open sourced -- but that's just the GUI. At the end of the day, someone has to pay for those telephone calls, so, no, skype can't just open source the whole thing and remain a business.

Oracle mobile Java licensing suit boomerangs


Harmony isn't ©Java

If I understand, because it's not certified, Harmony can't claim to be ©Java. But, what stops it from claiming to be Harmony? Oracle bought the copyright to the name ©Java, and owns the TCK, so can do what they like with the name ©Java and the TCK(?). Where and how does Apache go about telling Oracle the terms and conditions for Oracle software? Strange concept.

OTOH, If there's something you don't like about ©Java, great, fork OpenJDK -- oops, you'll have to use that dreaded (L)GPL. This is really about Apache not wanting to use the LGPL, nothing more.

To reiterate, Java is already open source. What's the problem?

Google Cr-48: Inside the Chrome OS 'unstable isotope'

Thumb Up

virus, etc

Which might be the point of this OS -- it has better security than Windows. On that point alone, think of the saved time, money and aggravation. On the flip side, think of all those who would be put out of work supporting the OS, which Google seems to have a strange take on. Under this concept, the unemployment in the US would worsen, and it's not like there are other jobs for those displaced, what with globalization.

In that sense, this *idea*, if perhaps not the implementation, is disruptive, which is good (overall). I see it as another step towards the commoditization of the OS. Nothing wrong with that.

Gmail's daddy predicts Chrome OS assassination


javascript -- why didn't SUN sue?

seriously, that's kinda basic brand protection. Did Sun somehow figure it would be advantageous?

Google revives ‘network computer’ with dual-OS assault on MS



I infer that this is a reference to IE6 and why sysadmins don't install it, but that's just guesswork.

Google: Oracle doctored that 'copied Java code'



Code under the GPL is protected from patent. If you remove the license, it's not just open to copyright infringment, but now that patent protection is lost. Possibly that's the logic?

Apache threatens Oracle with Java exit


why fork Java?

what is there to fork? OpenJDK is already under the GPL.

I mean, I guess you could fork it, but why? Which part of OpenJDK do you object to?

The point has been made before that all Google had to do was to fork OpenJDK and the resultant fork would've been fine for Android -- not sure why they didn't just do that. However, for Java SE, why fork at all?

Oracle goes in hard on Google Java suit


If Android were derived from OpenJDK, it would also have to be GPL...

That's the argument, that it *was* derived from OpenJDK. If true, that would be bombshell. With copyright infringement, isn't it per instance of violation? Continuing the what-if, that would be a huge settlement.

OTOH, the class was written from scratch, and *not* copy/paste/whatever from the GPL code, then it's fine if they happen to do the same thing the same way (?). IANAL -- but, for the sake of argument, I'll act like one ;)

All Google has to show, so far as I'm aware, would be the svn/git/etc logs showing how this class evolved. Presumably it's not just this one class? Kinda absurd to violate the GPL over one class file.

In this scenario, Microsoft and Apple would be primary beneficiary, as Google's existence benefits Oracle. It's turning into a regular soap opera :)

Google ends all Street View Wi-Fi data collection

Thumb Down

good result

Unless your name is in the SSID, how would anyone go about connecting your ID with the SSID? I thought it was an interesting concept for identifying hotspot's.

Oracle: no license for Android's Harmony friend



Why not just publish the TCK under the same license as OpenJDK, namely the GPL? Is there some downside preventing Oracle from doing that?

Skype dials up deal with Facebook


corporate market

Are you using Skype on Windows, or Skype for SIP, or what? I would assume that a business would use SIP, or Skype for SIP. If you're just running Skype, then, yeah, I can kinda see that.

Microsoft says US staff must chip in for healthcare


Poor Bill

Yeah, that's a good point. What's wrong with giving all Americans coverage? Why doesn't Bill just spend his money that way. Quite simple, too. Guess it's more fun to travel the globe.

Google robo cars drive selves on public streets

Thumb Up

Easier, cheaper way

To take this to its logical extreme, if the cars drive themselves, then performance from one car to another wouldn't matter, right? From a consumers standpoint, then performance becomes a non-issue. As would safety.

If that leads to the demise of the Hummer type car culture, then great, and it *would* actually result in lower emissions.

In a democracy it's kinda hard to get people to do what's collectively good if it goes against individual desires.

Google spits back at Oracle's Android suit


OpenJDK is GPL

Yes, I agree, why not simply fork OpenJDK or HotSpot -- both are GPL. That would've avoided this whole mess.



yeah, don't know about that point. It's not like you write Dalvik code and try to run in on a JVM. However, I guess that's the complaint, that Java should run on a JVM and not a DVM? Seems a bit of a stretch to try to prevent a post-compilation process(?).

Bristol Council mulls mixed FOSS, Microsoft upgrade

Gates Horns

G docs

google docs won't do the trick? Nothing to install, nothing to e-mail...

Tweety profs offer political smear-meme 'truthiness' ratings

Black Helicopters

Yeah, the truth, right

Exactly, AC, that's the problem -- the right wing distorts more than the left; absolutely, it's unequal.

Ballmer goes to LSE as internal doc calls for radical overhaul of MS


gold rush analogy fail

Hmm, yes, it's a gold rush, and, yes, historically, Levi et. al. made bucket loads of money. However, people also made money mining -- some of them got quite rich.

In any event, you're missing the markup. In your scenario, selling infrastructure, what's the markup? Conversely, what's the markup for offering the cloud? Seems to me that, for example, there's not much markup in selling hardware to Google.

Everyone but Oracle demands Java independence


Oracle doesn't own Java...

...Oracle owns the Java trademark, quite a difference.

Opensourcers get personal over Ellison's Google fight

Thumb Down

If not Java, then what?

At least on Linux, there's no C# option. This leave C++ and scripting languages, no?

Microsoft: Hotmail fix coming soon to a browser near you


pop3 finally?

so they finally broke down and offered free pop3?


is what wikipedia links to. Well, even AOL offers IMAP, so, even on that point, hotmail sucks.

Jobsian drones shackle gamer with 'lifetime' iPad ban


consumer protection

Err, no:

If an item scans higher at checkout than the sticker price on the item itself or the price posted on the shelf, in Connecticut, you’re entitled to that item at no cost. You don’t pay the higher price OR the lower price. In fact, the store must give the item to you free, up to a value of $20.


At non-grocery type stores you can insist upon the marked price so long as its reasonable. Ie, you can't buy a car for $20, but I have purchased a mp3 players for a fraction of the cost as scanned in based upon mismarking ($60 versus $20, IIRC).

I cannot believe that within the EU, including GB, that the consumer protection would be less than above. I flat out reject your contention that a shop can just decline a transaction. What about a "no irish or dogs" type sign? Get real.

Oracle's Ellison gambles with OpenOffice's future

Thumb Down


You lost all credibility with the claim that Netbeans is required to build JavaFX apps. I've never used FX and have no idea how the API works, but less than five seconds with Google contradicted your claim: there are eclipse plug-ins for JavaFX, of course.

Your other claims are just as suspect, which is unfortunate.