|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 02:11 PM EDT |
Yes, there are several books written on the APIs. The best are the O'Reilly
"java in a nutshell" series which present really just the class names,
methods and signatures separately from any explanation (which for writing a new
implementation is really much easier than having to filter out all the comments
added in the oracle javadoc. But these books were not the only ones, there were
several publishers which wrote books describing the specification of various
core packages. Even Sun themselves published some core library books together
with Addison-Wesely. And you could also start from something like the GNU
Classpath documentation of the same: http://developer.classpath.org/doc/[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 03:02 PM EDT |
If the Java license excerpted above said "You agree that you will not
perform any of the following acts..." then Oracle might have a claim. But
it does not.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: sproggit on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 03:33 PM EDT |
I think your observation is accurate [ see my later post about the fact that
Oracle's side of this story seems to be somewhat fluid ].
But what are the consequences for Oracle if they shift the bulk of their
objection to the fact that Google improperly used the design specification or
documentation for a language?
That documentation is given away freely by Oracle [it's available as HTML on
their web site, and has been for a long time]. The language specification is
going to be useful for ... any other companies that want to do their own clean
room implementations of JAVA.
And the queue for that group of companies is ... where, exactly?
In a weird sense, I think Oracle's tactic [forced on them, really, of moving the
infringement article to things like documentation] is going to backfire on them
in a big way.
If Google is found guilt of infringing on documentation, there is no way that
Oracle can show that evolves to a per-handset infringement. Per Developer,
maybe. Per downloaded copy of the SDK, at a pinch. But, c'mon...
Grow up already...[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Kilz on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 06:07 PM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
