|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 20 2012 @ 05:24 PM EDT |
Much like if you want to call your Operating System "UNIX," it has to
pass a few tests and you have to pay a fee. This is why *Linux and *BSD are not
called UNIX, but are referred to as "*nix" or "UNIX-like."
It's a trademark issue, (respected as it should be).
AFAICT, the java license is for companies who wish to call their product
"java" which Google never tried to do. Dalvic is quite a different
beast, as was necessary in order to improve it's efficiency for hand-held
devices.
What I don't understand is how this trademark issue (which isn't even an issue
when it comes to Java and Dalvic) corresponds to what they are portraying as
copyright issues... Or is this yet another smoke-and-mirrors attempt by Oracle
so that the jury might be confused enough to not make a sane vote? Like, maybe
Oracle has no case, but wants to pretends like they do anyway?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 20 2012 @ 06:45 PM EDT |
1. Google wanted/needed a license for the TCK so they could
mark their product as "Java(TM)"
2. Having passed the TCK, that license (and I've never had one
(so I'm reading between the lines here) also places limits on
how they can downstream license their product. These were
the conditions that Google couldn't accept or negotiate around.
It was always Google's intention to write their own code, using
the Java language -and- any of the necessary and concomitant
APIs. Now the Java Language License permits them to do that
so long as they don't ship any product claiming to be "Java(TM)"
My question, who was first to write/ship code using Java
(language + API) and call it something Not-Java(TM), Android, Harmony?
Oracle says this is not possible without "copying" the APIs.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
