I thought the whole basis of the lawsuit was JIT compilation, mixing and matching native code with an interpreter...
The language, I suspect could be protected as free speech. After all, GWT isn't being attacked here! On Tuesday, September 7, 2010, Reinier Zwitserloot <[email protected]> wrote: > How is increasing the general argument for any would-be programmer to > learn java in any way or form "a free ride"? > > If you follow lambda-dev and friends it becomes rather obvious that > the amount of resources oracle pours into freely available java stuff > is quite modest. > > What, exactly, is google "stealing" from oracle here? Java-the- > language? That was some random silly syntax slapped together by > Gosling and friends back in the day as an afterthought. It's not > novel, genius, or a big deal. Java as a platform has been successful > because of everything but the language, but those are exactly the > things google has NOT taken: They have NOT taken the standard library > (they took harmony). They've NOT taken the novel, genius, serious > investment JVM which its amazing ability to run code quickly. They > developed all that themselves. > > Sure, google is grandstanding. But at the end of the day, they owe Sun > or Oracle bupkis. > > On Sep 7, 7:01 am, Miroslav Pokorny <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Sep 7, 2:31 am, Miroslav Pokorny <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > In the end i am more disappointed in Google than Oracle. I know I got a >> > good >> > > deal and lot of gifts from Sun and I did not help contribute my bit to >> > keep >> > > their guardianship of Java going by sponsoring or contributing back to >> > their >> > > business. I suppose I am one of the many millions of "parasites" who is >> > now >> > > complaining because some worry the "free" ride may be over. >> >> > Ah but then you can be happy that now you can contribute back by >> > buying very expensive Oracle database licences. Sun's failure to >> > capitalize is not necessarily tied to Java being open source. Are >> > there really any software shops who would not be willing to pay for >> > state-of-the-art tools, good documentation etc., I doubt it. In any >> > even, Sun maintained that the Java side was profitable. >> >> Dont confuse my argument, i just find Google's stance hypocritical. When >> they said its an attack on open source, they really meant its an attack on >> their ability to get a free ride... >> >> > >If Google really >> > > loved Open Source why didnt they do the benevolent thing and just buy and >> > > sponsor Java development into the future, when they had the opportunity. >> >> > That's what many of us hoped, primarily because Google seems to have >> > the drive and the money to move the art forward. >> >> > > Truth be told they tried to be smart playing legal with lots of laywers >> > and >> > > know its come back to bite them. >> >> > Lots of lawyers? Could you explain? >> >> Google have always been careful with their labelling and marketting of >> Android. It is quite obvious that this approach had a lot of legal >> consultation and advice from business types who wished to follow this path >> rather than just buying Sun. As mentioned in the podcast, they knew that a >> questioning of this would occur sometime in the future, it was just a >> question of when. In the end, they decided to get fancy and we have the >> outcome that we are all witnessing today. >> >> >> >> >> >> > > They tried to be cheap and avoid >> > > contributing back to the community by coughing up the one thing the >> > > community or Sun really needed - the cash. Its not as if Google dont have >> > > the money, they always seem to have money and millions of it to buy some >> > > advertising related company, aka Double click. >> >> > I don't think Google owes Sun, they may piggyback of the language >> > syntax but 1) Oracle has nothing in their portfolio that rivals >> > Android and 2) for many years Google have indeed contributed back by >> > means of JSR's and experts like Bloch, Gafter etc. You insinuate they >> > tried to be cheap, albeit by all accounts the design behind Android >> > was primarily driven by technical and economical considerations. It's >> > possible we don't know the full story, Fabrizio Giudici among others >> > have hinted at that. Hopefully we will know soon. >> >> Josh, Neal etc are all brilliant, but one cannot compare $7B to whatever >> contributions and efforts they extend. >> >> > If Java was truly open, >> > we would not even be talking about this parenting thing, we would be >> > talking about our brothers and sisters in the community. >> >> Maybe so, thats another argument for another day, but my original reply was >> to the label "this is an attach on open source". >> >> It Oracle did not buy Sun, and nobody bought it in the end, what else could >> be said of those who made billions using Java, its community and yet in its >> time of need did not want to be benevolent ? Open Source is about people, >> companies giving and taking, sometimes we give a library, or patch here and >> there. Bigger entities gain considerably more from open source by >> definition, because they benefit from libraries and make more incoming. The >> same argument can be said of taxation responsibilities, we all share the >> benefits of government a -- Kevin Wright mail / gtalk / msn : [email protected] pulse / skype: kev.lee.wright twitter: @thecoda -- 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.
