Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 13th Aug 2010 22:58 UTC, submitted by Alex Forster
Legal We're far from done with the Oracle v. Google lawsuit. The search giant has responded to the lawsuit, and Miguel De Icaza has provided a very interesting insight into the case. His report has been confirmed by James Gosling, known as the father of Java who left Sun right after the merger. Icaza speculates that the potential to monetise on Java by suing Google was pitched by Jonathan Schwartz during Sun's sales talks with Oracle. Oh boy.
Thread beginning with comment 436750
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
OSS folks bashed Mono, saying that
by MollyC on Sat 14th Aug 2010 01:04 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

it should be avoided at all costs, out of fear that someday Microsoft would sue those that implemented and/or deployed that particular alternative implementation of .NET. This, despite the fact that Microsoft had submitted C# and the core of .NET to a standards body (ECMA, I think), and eventually signed a public legal committment to not sue over Mono.

But others warned that Java was as patent-encumbered as .NET, and that there was nothing preventing Sun from suing implementers of alternative JVMs (or quasi-JVMs) that might infringed on Java's patents. But the OSS folks dismissed those warnings, saying that Sun had earned their trust (unlike Microsoft), and so they could trust Sun to never sue over infringement of Java's patents.

So I just have to laugh at this turn of events.
The OSS community trusted Sun not to sue and distrusted Micrsoft not to sue. The OSS community made the wrong call, likely out of their hatred of Microsoft.

Edited 2010-08-14 01:13 UTC

Reply Score: 8

Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Let's hope Oracle doesn't buy Microsoft, eh?

Reply Parent Score: 11

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

LOL! Great quip!

Reply Parent Score: 2

bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

Umm...huge numbers of us open source people have neither Java nor Mono installed and don't want this technology. You shouldn't make generalizations over this and artificially classify us.

Reply Parent Score: 7

leech Member since:
2006-01-10

I'm not quite sure where you got all that, but if you look at how Debian and most distributions do it, they don't install Mono OR Java by default, at least not Sun's Java, they use the OpenJDK, which is basically the 'Open source Java that Sun backed."

Now according to Wikipedia, both are 'mostly' GPLv2.

The problem is there are bits of both, namely class libraries for Java and other bits for .Net that can't be GPL due to whatever.

The heart of the problem with Google's 'java' is that you can't take something written with the java language that is made to work with Dalvik, and use it on any other Java VM.

Breaks the whole "run anywhere" philosophy.

Python FTW!

Reply Parent Score: 5

Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

This is totally different from the Mono situation. If Google had made something Mono-like, i.e. binary compatible with the official Java runtime, there would be no problem. On the other hand, the Davlik VM purposefully breaks compatibility with the official Java runtime. It can easily be argued that Google is employing lock-in tactics here, which is a Bad Thing (whether or not that is actually Google's primary motivation). So Oracle actually has grounds to be pissed.

Mono on the other hand is generally a good little boy when it comes to sticking to .NET compatibility, so MS suing would seem like a much less reasonable thing to do.

Edited 2010-08-14 19:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3