Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Apr 2012 19:17 UTC, submitted by bowkota
Legal Java creator James Gosling: "Just because Sun didn't have patent suits in our genetic code doesn't mean we didn't feel wronged. While I have differences with Oracle, in this case they are in the right. Google totally slimed Sun. We were all really disturbed, even Jonathan: he just decided to put on a happy face and tried to turn lemons into lemonade, which annoyed a lot of folks at Sun." Ouch. Also, doesn't jive with Schwartz' comments - might be illustrative of how bad things really were at the once great Sun.
Thread beginning with comment 516378
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Go ahead and patent the language
by jonsmirl on Mon 30th Apr 2012 19:46 UTC
jonsmirl
Member since:
2005-07-06

Go ahead and patent the language, just honestly tell people whether the language is a proprietary or open. Google could then make a reasonable choice whether or not to use the language. GPLing Java was a pretty clear statement that Sun meant for it to be an open language.

What I hate is companies deceptively claiming openness, but then when you get down to all of the nitpicky details, the language is actually closed. Kind of like Rambus and their patents.

If Google had known that Oracle was going to behave like this we'd probably all be using Python right now.

Reply Score: 13

jasutton Member since:
2006-03-28

Oh, for the love of Mike, did you have to suggest that possibility? I'd be developing Android apps all day long if Python was the language of choice there!

Reply Parent Score: 3

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

If people already complain about Android vs iOS speed, then they would be really fast.

Reply Parent Score: 2

freebsd Member since:
2010-08-26

could you not now ? use Jython, maybe!!

Reply Parent Score: 1

Tony Swash Member since:
2009-08-22

Go ahead and patent the language, just honestly tell people whether the language is a proprietary or open. Google could then make a reasonable choice whether or not to use the language. GPLing Java was a pretty clear statement that Sun meant for it to be an open language.

What I hate is companies deceptively claiming openness, but then when you get down to all of the nitpicky details, the language is actually closed. Kind of like Rambus and their patents.

If Google had known that Oracle was going to behave like this we'd probably all be using Python right now.


The GPL point is critical to understanding why Google didn't get a license from Sun. It was because if they had then Android would have had to have been equally open and released under a similar GPL license and Google had no intention of making Android open, just free.

Google could afford to give Android away for free as it did not undermine their business model but they could not make it open otherwise they risked losing the lever they were seeking to force handset makers to bake in Google services. Their actions utterly perverted the notion of open source and they knew it but they also knew if the kept talking about Android being open and if they gave it away for free they would fool enough people into thinking it was open.

Reply Parent Score: 1

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

It was because if they had then Android would have had to have been equally open and released under a similar GPL license and Google had no intention of making Android open, just free.


How distorted is your reality?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)

"Android is a Linux-based operating system for mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet computers. It is developed by the Open Handset Alliance, led by Google, and other companies."

Android is based on Linux, which is already under GPL.

Do you ever write anything based on logic and facts?

Reply Parent Score: 2

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

No. Sun was of course free to license Java any number of ways it wished. Just because you the original and only contribute to a code base license it to anyone under GPL, it doesn't mean you can't also license it to someone else under a different licence that doesn't require modification sharing.

There have been a number of companies that have pursued this line of thinking, creating a version of their application under GPL, and another version for sale ( presumably with more features) under a different license that did not grant the user any distribution and or modification rights.

Reply Parent Score: 2