Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 27th Apr 2012 01:00 UTC
Legal "Former Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz took the stand here today as a witness for the defense, and disputed Oracle's claim that Java APIs were proprietary code from Sun. Google's lawyer, Robert van Nest, asked Schwartz whether, during his tenure at Sun, Java APIs were considered proprietary or protected by Sun. 'No,' Schwartz said in explaining the nature of open software, 'These are open APIs, and we wanted to bring in more people... We wanted to build the biggest tent and invite as many people as possible.'" Whoopsie for Oracle.
Thread beginning with comment 516032
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Re:
by BluenoseJake on Fri 27th Apr 2012 23:21 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Re:"
BluenoseJake
Member since:
2005-08-11

So what is the point to use a language, which legally is frozen in time?


Not really what we were discussing. The syntax and keywords and structure of the language may be at version 2.0, but that doesn't stop your version of the cli from having whatever extensions you want, if you are implementing it. To be standards compliant, you just must be able to compile and run any arbitary C# 2.0 program, but if the cli exposes more objects, then the language can use them. Just like Mono exposes gtk+ without violating the standard.

Edited 2012-04-27 23:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2