|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 10:44 AM EDT |
And after the judge said their press release was
a no no.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 02:38 PM EDT |
Thank you. Anybody have the Oracle press release from
yesterday?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 03:30 PM EDT |
I was perplexed yesterday by Jacobs' attempt to link Lindholm,
the need for licence, the 2005/6 negotiations, and -the-
Lindholm email of August 2010. I think Slide 21 is a clue.
> "Must take license from Sun"
Highlighted, then expanded in drop shadow, almost obliterating
the reason why a license was needed:
> Need coffee cup logo for carrier certifications
As we've been saying here all along, if they don't call it Java, they
don't need a license. When Google realised they could make Android
as big as Java, and as popular to carriers, a license was moot.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 04:03 PM EDT |
Slides 40 - 48 harp on about Google's certain knowledge that
they needed a license. But anyone reading around the highlighted
phrases should see that Google needed, and wanted a license to,
1. call the product Java,
2. use the coffee cup logo
3. gain acceptance from carriers wedded to mainstream technologies,
4. [probably the clincher] release the Google product under an
open source license, not Sun-Community, nor GPL.
Harmony made all those points moot.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
