Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 9th May 2014 18:36 UTC
Legal

A San Francisco federal judge had decided that Oracle could not claim copyright protection on parts of Java, but on Friday the three-judge Federal Circuit panel reversed that ruling.

"We conclude that a set of commands to instruct a computer to carry out desired operations may contain expression that is eligible for copyright protection," Federal Circuit Judge Kathleen O'Malley wrote.

This is terrible news for the technology industry and us enthusiasts.

This case should have ended with this. Everything after that is a sham.

Thread beginning with comment 588560
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: or with OpenJDK
by WorknMan on Fri 9th May 2014 22:39 UTC in reply to "RE: or with OpenJDK"
WorknMan
Member since:
2005-11-13

The license is only valid for server/desktop usage of OpenJDK.


As I thought Java was open source, is this the 'loophole' Oracle is suing over?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: or with OpenJDK
by moondevil on Fri 9th May 2014 22:47 in reply to "RE[2]: or with OpenJDK"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

When Sun made OpenJDK available, the license never covered embedded scenarios, like J2ME and JavaCard for example.

Google then tried to negotiate with Sun, for embedded use, but those talks failed.

They then came up with Dalvik and used Harmony for the base Java support.

Gosling said that the Sun was not that happy, contrary to the link posted by Tom.

http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/my_attitude_on_oracle_v

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.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: or with OpenJDK
by WorknMan on Fri 9th May 2014 23:41 in reply to "RE[3]: or with OpenJDK"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

They then came up with Dalvik and used Harmony for the base Java support.


For the non-Java programmer, what does that mean specifically?

Whatever the case, it seems that Google knew they were on shaky ground, esp if they didn't get explicit permission from Sun to use the parts that they didn't have a license for.

Reply Parent Score: 2