Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 16th Sep 2012 16:53 UTC
Google There's a bit of a story going on between Google, Acer, and Alibaba, a Chinese mobile operating system vendor. Acer wanted to ship a device with Alibaba's operating system, but Google asked them not to, and Acer complied. The reason is that Acer is a member of the Open Handset Alliance, which prohibits the promotion of non-standard Android implementations - exactly what Alibaba is shipping. On top of that, Alibaba's application store hosts pirated Android applications, including ones from Google.
Thread beginning with comment 535378
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Wait a minute
by atsureki on Mon 17th Sep 2012 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Wait a minute"
atsureki
Member since:
2006-03-12

Google took the Java language and made their own runtime (which is akin to taking a French and writing a French novel). Google did not fork nor do anything else to Oracles Java runtime (which is what you're implying with the Android fork comparison)


This is completely wrong.

Java is not a natural language, and Google did not simply write something in Java. They engineered an incompatible implementation of Java's underlying design. They used Sun's work to create a functional clone because they didn't like Sun's licenses.

It's all right here: http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/features/opening-slides-1592541....

I especially like page 50, where freedom-defending Google talks about how the GPL version of Java is unacceptable because it would infect all their proprietary add-ons (we certainly can't expect the OHA to be stuck producing actually-open phones), and page 81, which shows lines of code fully copied and pasted from Java to Android.

Much of the rest of the document consists of e-mails expressing the need for Java and their unwillingness to use it on Sun's terms, and a deposition in which a programmer is unable to deny accessing and copying Sun's code.

In short: Google forked Java, called it Dalvik, and put up a policy of not mentioning the J-word, and not even demoing Dalvik around Sun employees and lawyers. Yeah. They know full well what they did.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Wait a minute
by chithanh on Mon 17th Sep 2012 01:59 in reply to "RE[2]: Wait a minute"
chithanh Member since:
2006-06-18

Google forked Java, called it Dalvik
That is not true, they didn't use Sun's Java code. And I don't think that fork means what you think it does.

Quoting Wikipedia: "In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software."(emphasis mine)[1]

In contrast, what Alibaba did is take Android code and build their own, incompatible OS from it. So that is a fork.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Wait a minute
by atsureki on Mon 17th Sep 2012 03:59 in reply to "RE[3]: Wait a minute"
atsureki Member since:
2006-03-12

That is not true, they didn't use Sun's Java code. And I don't think that fork means what you think it does.

Quoting Wikipedia: "In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software."(emphasis mine)[1]

In contrast, what Alibaba did is take Android code and build their own, incompatible OS from it. So that is a fork.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(software_development)



Like I said, page 81 of Oracle's opening statement slideshow contains snippets of code that were copied unmodified from Java into Android. So fork, even by that strict definition, is partially true, just as reimplementation by a strict definition is only partially true, as it wasn't done cleanly. They accessed Sun's original code to "help" them copy it. Maybe that approach wasn't strictly authorized, but the leaked e-mails in the linked PDF establish a firm pattern of looking the other way. They also establish that Google's explicit goal was to get Java technology without accepting Sun's terms, which is precisely what they're now accusing Alibaba of doing, while simultaneously maintaining the narrative that Android is not proprietary.

Reply Parent Score: 2