That's a pointless conclusion. Of course its about money, but, in what form? Maybe they think the db/corporate work is going to go mobile in a big way, and Oracle wants to start writing apps for db management in one of the mobile platforms. They prefer android but want to attempt to get some say in how its run.
Of course you can have a cleanroom implementation of something that isnt a standard. The Java API is not property. It's true Oracle controls its definition, change, and release, but only by popular fiat. If android declares that henceforth, java.util.HashMap no longer accepts null keys or some such, then that's not illegal, and now there are two conflicting Java API versions. This is mostly just really annoying so nobody does this, but its possible, which shows how the Java API isn't property at all. I think you're conflating the API with the actual implementation of one, i.e. rt.jar. *THAT* you've licensed, and abusing or changing that in ways the license doesn't let you do would be illegal. But that's not what google did. and, yes, OF COURSE you can write your own java.lang.String, which is different from oracle's take on this class, and ship it far and wide. Just because your class file contains "my name is java.lang.String" doesn't magically grant Oracle the power of legal writ over that particular stream of bytes. Which is why, for the umpteenth time, Oracle is suing Google based on patents, and not copyright or trademarks. On Aug 17, 1:58 am, mP <[email protected]> wrote: > Of course its about money. What other possible motive or reward could > Oracle possible hope to achieve. Companies only exist to make money. > > Android is not a cleanroom implementation, because there is no > standard to implement. When something is a standard then by definition > that is public and people can take it and build sommething. On the > other hand, the Java API is Suns property, the define, change and > control its direction and releases etc. We program to the product not > the implementation. We have a license to use as it is. Is it not > illegal to modify a java class and ship the java.*.class with a > product. If i never used Java in my product name i still cant "alter" > core java classes and ship them - because that work in part and whole, > api and code inside is the property of Sun. -- 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.
