Android definitely is not going to be compatible with Java. Google
decided to go that way, and they had their own reasons. They choose
register based Dalvik VM instead of stack-based JVM to optimize it for
ARM processors dominant in the mobile space. And they decided to
create their own GUI instead of Swing/AWT/JavaME GUI support.

I agree with Neil that there is hardy any resemblance with the
Microsoft case. Microsoft basically tried to fork Java breaking WORA
while using Java(TM). And the main goal was to settle Java developers
on Windows-dependent extensions. There was a real reason for the suit.
Google's making fork targeted on different platform while not using
the trademark. And their goal is to make competitive mobile platform
which is not going to run JavaME anyway (I don't believe that ME is
suitable for modern smartphones). Android main competitors are outside
of Oracle/Sun currently targeted platforms (JavaME and Android have
some overlap, but when the first is just an application sandbox,
Android is a full-blown application stack). So I think there is no
good reason for Oracle/Sun to sue Google.

So what Sun/Oracle and Google have to do with it?
I think Android should be called Java. That is beneficial to both
Oracle and Google. Since Android is a quite successful mobile
platform, it should become something like another Java profile for
smartphones. Moreover, there must be open way to do it with the
community. Sometimes it is hard to drive innovation without
fragmentation of the platform. And in that sense, fragmentation could
be good after all.

Sometimes standards are good, but sometimes they are not flexible
enough in the moving hi-tech world.

At some point standards become too heavy for new entrants to enter the
market with innovative technology. It is too heavy and expensive to
implement and too restrictive for innovation. As a result, we see
forks of Java – like Android. You have a trade off to keep full
compatibility and Java(TM) or make technology incompatible but more
suited for the task. And what is the point in technology if it is not
suited for task for the sake of compatibility? Well... it is always a
trade off.

In time, if nothing will change in licensing policy, we could see more
forks of Java. They will look exactly like Java, will use Java
language, Java open-source libraries, Java toolchain and huge
developer base but will not be entitled to be called Java.

Platform modularization and more versatile profiles could be the
answer. Maybe Oracle/Sun should change their licensing policy. I don't
think that allowing to call Java(TM) everything that runs on some kind
of VM is a good answer – there always must be strict compatibility
requirements. But, for example, they could establish several
trademarks – Java(TM), Smells like Java(TM) etc... Give them different
compatibility levels. So some simple Java implementations (which
simply don't have any reasons to support full-blown Java stack) could
also be called SomethingLikeJava (TM).

My concern is that Oracle is not the company which adopts but the
company that pushes. So they will continue to use old licensing terms
and will be promoting JavaME+JavaFX instead of using the job already
done for them by Google in developing new generation mobile platform.

Igor


On Jul 22, 11:13 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I listened to the latest podcast and there was a lot of discussion
> about how Oracle could go after Google because Android is an alternate
> java implementation. What is the basis for this?
>
> see this about the microsoft/sun 
> settlement:http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-01-2001/jw-0124-iw-mssuncourt.html
>
> Does Google have a similar licensing agreement with Sun/Oracle?
> I just can't imagine that Google would leave itself open to a giant
> lawsuit as the Dick/Joe suggested.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The 
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.

Reply via email to