Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 27th Apr 2012 01:00 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 515883
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Schwartz's comments don't ring true...
by tomcat on Fri 27th Apr 2012 17:56
in reply to "RE: Schwartz's comments don't ring true..."
The APIs were as open as, lets say, UNIX.
You were entitled to create Java like implementations of those APIs/VM, but to be able to state that your implementation was Java compatible with the Java trademark logo, you needed to certify your implementation.
You were entitled to create Java like implementations of those APIs/VM, but to be able to state that your implementation was Java compatible with the Java trademark logo, you needed to certify your implementation.
Except that's not what Oracle is arguing. They're arguing that Google actually copied certain Java sources, and that the Google implementation is a derivative work.
RE[3]: Schwartz's comments don't ring true...
by JAlexoid on Fri 27th Apr 2012 23:26
in reply to "RE[2]: Schwartz's comments don't ring true..."





Member since:
2005-07-08
The APIs were as open as, lets say, UNIX.
You were entitled to create Java like implementations of those APIs/VM, but to be able to state that your implementation was Java compatible with the Java trademark logo, you needed to certify your implementation.