Rather than these "I don't like what you do with your life so I'm going to try to hinder you from doing it through a passive-aggressive tax measure"
Taxes on carbon emissions aren't about "not liking" liking something, they are about making you pay for costs you impose on the rest of the world without paying for them (externalities).
Libertarian arguments that you don't need taxes because private property will take care of it don't work for many externalities.
so they're depending on $30B of Federal money to magically fall from the sky
Many billions of dollars are falling from the sky every year to support airlines, air planes, and roads, in the form of air traffic control, fuel subsidies, airport subsidies, airport infrastructure, security, policing, road maintenance, etc., so why not? And much of the money is going to go into the California economy, which really needs it.
The city of San Francisco owns the network; they can run it as poorly as they choose, until voters kick out those responsible or the government accounting office charges them with something.
Childs was an employee and bound by his contract and his duty to his employer.
The GP argued that IcedTea derived patent rights via the GPLv2 from the patent holder and original distributor, Sun/Oracle. If it weren't copyrighted by Sun/Oracle, then you certainly wouldn't receive any patent rights that way. (Of course, large portions of it *are* copyrighted by Oracle.)
It's really not that complicated: spend time with her if she wants to. Don't constantly shove a video camera in her face. Keep in mind that when some people are ill, they may actually need quiet time, so be sensitive.
The derivative is only so far as class libraries are concerned.
IBM is still bound by its license terms. So it is not an independent implementation.
Furthermore, Harmony code continues to steadily replace Oracle's class library code,
Even if you replace Oracle's class library completely, it still won't be an independent implementation because you will be bound by Oracle's license terms. Once IBM's Java and patent license agreement with Oracle end (if they ever do), you'll be in the same situation as Android: non-conforming and infringing Oracle's patents.
Actually, IBM will be in a worse situation; Dalvik is very different from Java, but IBM will be infringing pretty much all of Oracle's patents.
Well, SUN is good or evil is the subject of this thread BTW.
Who cares? Sun is dead. We need to make sure this doesn't happen again.
I think that GPL is the best option, but it's my opinion.
And that's the problem: the GPL is not sufficient. Dual-licensing, lack of a clear patent grant, breaking promises, and requiring copyright assignment are red flags.
Yes, but the Harmony project has not resulted in a conforming implementation yet; negotiations about that have been going on for years between Sun/Oracle and Harmony and have failed.
Well, it's not about whether Sun was good or evil, it's about having open source developers avoid being so gullible in the future. Companies fail and you can't rely on their supposed good will or track record. What matters is the licenses and patent situation.
The GPLv2 is a license from the copyright holders to you. Oracle is the sole copyright holder. They can distribute the software in any way you like to you, they aren't bound by the GPLv2 terms, and only they can sue over license violations. So, they can distribute it to you and slap a GPLv2 on it. You can distribute it under the GPLv2 only if you can comply with the terms. Since you probably can't, you're not just violating Oracle's patents but also Oracle's GPLv2 license terms.
Another point is that if Google had used IcedTea (the GPL'd version of Java), they never would have been at risk from Sun/Oracle's patents.
Yes, they would have. You only get a patent grant if you provide a full J2SE implementation, which would have been totally unreasonable on a phone. Merely building on top of the GPL'ed version is not enough.
Oracle and Google will just settle, the lawyers will get their share and the world will keep spinning.
Yes, and the only Java implementations that exist will be those derived from, and licensed by, Oracle. That makes Java a proprietary platform, legally not much different from Microsoft Windows.
In principle, I agree. But there was not much choice at the time: non-Windows platforms had no viable GUI, no viable alternative to VisualBasic, and Microsoft looked like they were going to take over the industry entirely. Between certain doom (Microsoft) and a geeky tech company that had been fairly open (Sun), Sun was the lesser evil.
This doesn't mean you're wrong, but it means that you can't use these links as citations.
IBM is shipping a closed source implementation and they have licensed Java, so therefore their closed source implementation is not proof of the existence of an independent implementation not created under license. How much code it shares doesn't matter, what matters is that IBM has a license and is bound by the terms.
If you want to state that independent, conforming implementations exist, you need to show that some entity that is not a licensee has created a conforming implementation.
For IBM we know anyway: just download the software https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/, read the licensing information, and then look through the class files and implementation-dependent parts.
There are alternate implementations - you are complaining because they have to pass a test suite? Come on, how else can you be sure the VM works!!
I'm complaining because they have to pass a test suite or else face patent infringement claims from Sun. Furthermore, the test suite itself is only available under restrictive terms. That's not an open platform.
Two licensed (meaning safe from lawsuit) implementations
If they are licensed, they are not independent implementations. Open platforms don't need to be licensed and aren't controlled by any one entity.
Harmony [apache.org] (From Apache)
Are you living under a rock??? Harmony isn't licensed, it hasn't passed the JCK, and you cannot run the JCK on it without violating the JCK license. That charade has been going on for years now.
Sun made a promise and commitment to make Java an ANSI/ISO standard and they failed to live up to that, period. As a result, the industry is stuck with a proprietary and badly designed language.
As for the reasons, in the 90's, the industry and standards bodies were highly sympathetic to Sun; they could have gotten Java through fast track and without any changes from Microsoft. It was Sun's decision not to standardize Java, precisely because they did not want it to be an open platform.
As for C#, yes, Microsoft didn't have much of a choice at that point: they needed a Java-like language and they couldn't use Java. What were they supposed to do?
Sun overplayed their hand and they lost; their control of Java never translated into a sufficiently large business. If they had gone through with Java standardization in the 90's, they might even still be in business.
Anyways I think the only way for Oracle to have a case holding water is if google used code that had SUN IP for Dalvik.
No, what matters is whether Dalvik violates Oracle's patents. Dalvik is totally different from the JVM, probably in order to minimize the risk of violating Sun's patent portfolio. Nevertheless, some of the patents may still stick. The fact that Android kind of skirts around the Java issue in the way it does also will look bad to a jury.
Still, I think Android is in less trouble here than Java. This is mainly an indictment of Java and its claims of being open and non-proprietary.
Slashdot Mirror
You should hear how much better the music sounds when you use a USB interface implemented in vacuum tubes.
Rather than these "I don't like what you do with your life so I'm going to try to hinder you from doing it through a passive-aggressive tax measure"
Taxes on carbon emissions aren't about "not liking" liking something, they are about making you pay for costs you impose on the rest of the world without paying for them (externalities).
Libertarian arguments that you don't need taxes because private property will take care of it don't work for many externalities.
so they're depending on $30B of Federal money to magically fall from the sky
Many billions of dollars are falling from the sky every year to support airlines, air planes, and roads, in the form of air traffic control, fuel subsidies, airport subsidies, airport infrastructure, security, policing, road maintenance, etc., so why not? And much of the money is going to go into the California economy, which really needs it.
The city of San Francisco owns the network; they can run it as poorly as they choose, until voters kick out those responsible or the government accounting office charges them with something.
Childs was an employee and bound by his contract and his duty to his employer.
IcedTea is not Oracle copyright.
The GP argued that IcedTea derived patent rights via the GPLv2 from the patent holder and original distributor, Sun/Oracle. If it weren't copyrighted by Sun/Oracle, then you certainly wouldn't receive any patent rights that way. (Of course, large portions of it *are* copyrighted by Oracle.)
Wrong two word answer. I seriously doubt BeOS was ever used much for scientific research.
The correct two word answer is: "lab notebook".
It's really not that complicated: spend time with her if she wants to. Don't constantly shove a video camera in her face. Keep in mind that when some people are ill, they may actually need quiet time, so be sensitive.
The derivative is only so far as class libraries are concerned.
IBM is still bound by its license terms. So it is not an independent implementation.
Furthermore, Harmony code continues to steadily replace Oracle's class library code,
Even if you replace Oracle's class library completely, it still won't be an independent implementation because you will be bound by Oracle's license terms. Once IBM's Java and patent license agreement with Oracle end (if they ever do), you'll be in the same situation as Android: non-conforming and infringing Oracle's patents.
Actually, IBM will be in a worse situation; Dalvik is very different from Java, but IBM will be infringing pretty much all of Oracle's patents.
I work on IBM JDK 7
Well, get your lawyers ready.
Well, SUN is good or evil is the subject of this thread BTW.
Who cares? Sun is dead. We need to make sure this doesn't happen again.
I think that GPL is the best option, but it's my opinion.
And that's the problem: the GPL is not sufficient. Dual-licensing, lack of a clear patent grant, breaking promises, and requiring copyright assignment are red flags.
http://support.apple.com/kb/dl972
Um, no [ibm.com], not necessarily.
That's a derivative of Sun/Oracle's proprietary implementation, produced under license.
Yes, but the Harmony project has not resulted in a conforming implementation yet; negotiations about that have been going on for years between Sun/Oracle and Harmony and have failed.
Well, it's not about whether Sun was good or evil, it's about having open source developers avoid being so gullible in the future. Companies fail and you can't rely on their supposed good will or track record. What matters is the licenses and patent situation.
The license requires whatever Oracle wants to put in there; these licenses are negotiated on a case-by-case basis.
Presumably, that's not attractive to Google, otherwise they had agreed to it years ago.
Not true at all. For example, that's exactly what Apache Harmony is: a clean room implementation that meets all the conditions.
Stop lying. Apache Harmony does not meet the conditions.
http://www.javaworld.com/community/node/4439
The goal of the patent grant was clearly to avoid fragmentation.
No, the goal of Sun's patent and licensing shenanigans was to gain control of key APIs in the industry. "Fragmentation" was merely a smokescreen.
The under the GPL licensed Java VM will become a much more proprietary platform then the C# from MS one.
The GPL-licensed Java VM is already proprietary, it can't become any more proprietary than it is.
I think every C# fan boy is so happy about this news, but can you please try a little harder?
Don't use Java, it's a patent trap. That's all I can say. Personally, I use Python, Ruby, and C++ instead. If C# is your thing, fine.
The GPLv2 is a license from the copyright holders to you. Oracle is the sole copyright holder. They can distribute the software in any way you like to you, they aren't bound by the GPLv2 terms, and only they can sue over license violations. So, they can distribute it to you and slap a GPLv2 on it. You can distribute it under the GPLv2 only if you can comply with the terms. Since you probably can't, you're not just violating Oracle's patents but also Oracle's GPLv2 license terms.
Another point is that if Google had used IcedTea (the GPL'd version of Java), they never would have been at risk from Sun/Oracle's patents.
Yes, they would have. You only get a patent grant if you provide a full J2SE implementation, which would have been totally unreasonable on a phone. Merely building on top of the GPL'ed version is not enough.
Oracle and Google will just settle, the lawyers will get their share and the world will keep spinning.
Yes, and the only Java implementations that exist will be those derived from, and licensed by, Oracle. That makes Java a proprietary platform, legally not much different from Microsoft Windows.
In principle, I agree. But there was not much choice at the time: non-Windows platforms had no viable GUI, no viable alternative to VisualBasic, and Microsoft looked like they were going to take over the industry entirely. Between certain doom (Microsoft) and a geeky tech company that had been fairly open (Sun), Sun was the lesser evil.
This doesn't mean you're wrong, but it means that you can't use these links as citations.
IBM is shipping a closed source implementation and they have licensed Java, so therefore their closed source implementation is not proof of the existence of an independent implementation not created under license. How much code it shares doesn't matter, what matters is that IBM has a license and is bound by the terms.
If you want to state that independent, conforming implementations exist, you need to show that some entity that is not a licensee has created a conforming implementation.
For IBM we know anyway: just download the software https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/java/jdk/, read the licensing information, and then look through the class files and implementation-dependent parts.
citation? I can't find any history on IBM's JVM. (IBM is notorious for keeping this kind of information locked away on the 9-net...)
http://www.devsource.com/c/a/Architecture/IBM-Extends-Java-License-with-Sun/
(There's this little thing called Google, you know.)
I dimly remember IBM announcing that they would develop their own JVM not based on Sun's JVM, but I certainly can't find any citation either.
http://harmony.apache.org/contributors.html
They have been fighting with Sun/Oracle for years now over licensing and certifying.
There are alternate implementations - you are complaining because they have to pass a test suite? Come on, how else can you be sure the VM works!!
I'm complaining because they have to pass a test suite or else face patent infringement claims from Sun. Furthermore, the test suite itself is only available under restrictive terms. That's not an open platform.
Two licensed (meaning safe from lawsuit) implementations
If they are licensed, they are not independent implementations. Open platforms don't need to be licensed and aren't controlled by any one entity.
Harmony [apache.org] (From Apache)
Are you living under a rock??? Harmony isn't licensed, it hasn't passed the JCK, and you cannot run the JCK on it without violating the JCK license. That charade has been going on for years now.
Goldencode - J2SE for OS/2 [goldencode.com]
Yes, a derivative of Sun's source code.
Sun made a promise and commitment to make Java an ANSI/ISO standard and they failed to live up to that, period. As a result, the industry is stuck with a proprietary and badly designed language.
As for the reasons, in the 90's, the industry and standards bodies were highly sympathetic to Sun; they could have gotten Java through fast track and without any changes from Microsoft. It was Sun's decision not to standardize Java, precisely because they did not want it to be an open platform.
As for C#, yes, Microsoft didn't have much of a choice at that point: they needed a Java-like language and they couldn't use Java. What were they supposed to do?
Sun overplayed their hand and they lost; their control of Java never translated into a sufficiently large business. If they had gone through with Java standardization in the 90's, they might even still be in business.
Anyways I think the only way for Oracle to have a case holding water is if google used code that had SUN IP for Dalvik.
No, what matters is whether Dalvik violates Oracle's patents. Dalvik is totally different from the JVM, probably in order to minimize the risk of violating Sun's patent portfolio. Nevertheless, some of the patents may still stick. The fact that Android kind of skirts around the Java issue in the way it does also will look bad to a jury.
Still, I think Android is in less trouble here than Java. This is mainly an indictment of Java and its claims of being open and non-proprietary.