jimmyvanhalen

Gosling: "Despite my well-known opinions on Oracle, they wouldn't do any of the nightmare scenarios that some have imagined: such a meltdown would not be in their own self interest. They have actually been unexpectedly good stewards of Java (although less so of Solaris)."

Still doesn't give you the right to steal my tv.

He said many things that were pro-Android. Endorsements, explanation, etc. it doesn't matter. What he said was not a license.

What questions? anyone can fork OpenJDK and release it under a different license due to the classpath exceptions, and if they pass the TCK they can call their software Java. If not they cant't. but PhoneME doesn't have the classpath exception and that's why Google didn't like that.

Here's Andy Rubin's email:

"We are building a platform where the entire purpose is to let people differentiate on top of it," said Android chief Andy Rubin in an August 11, 2007, e-mail that Oracle is touting in its case against Google (PDF). "Sun chose GPL for this exact reason so that companies would need to come back to them and take a direct license and pay royalties."

so what is your point?

>Jonathan Schwartz said both bothered them but had to be tolerated, but you've made clear that his opinion couldn't possibly be relevant. We'll just have to see how this case turns out.

His "endorsement" is not a license or a permission to break copyright/license agreements.

Which I agreed with. That's why I said "We'll find out for sure in a few days."

I just posted this to highlight the fact that things are in Oracle's favor.

jury told by Judge to assume APIs are copyrightable.

Since that order emphasizes the importance of the APIs, it probably weighs in Oracle's favor.

>"hack groovy improvements into it, compile it, and want to give it to the world."

under GPL (OpenJDK) not ASL (Harmony <-- groovy name).

Here's what the Apache Foundation said after it discontinued work on Harmony.

"Java specifications are proprietary technology that must be licensed directly from the spec lead under whatever terms the spec lead chooses."

Sun/Oracle had OpenJDK (published under GPL) which is supported by everyone including IBM (after it abandoned Harmony).

>you're going to have to expect non-"Java" open source forks.

yes, licensed under GPL not ASL.

Here's what Andy Rubin had to say about GPL:

"The problem with GPL in embedded systems [such as smartphones and tablets] is that it's viral [...]"

"Sun chose GPL for this exact reason so that companies would need to come back to them and take a direct license and pay royalties."

Here's what the ASF had to say:

that Java specifications are proprietary technology that must be licensed directly from the spec lead under whatever terms the spec lead chooses;