|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 03:47 AM EDT |
But, if this case goes in favor of Oracle and the decision survives appeal, Both
Using and reimplementing would require a license from the author of the API to
do, and your work would become a derivative work, whose continued distribution
depended on the holding of a license to do so from the author of the API.
Spend millions of dollars writing $software in $language. $language.author finds
that you have breached one of the esoteric terms of your license to $language,
so you can no longer sell your $software. THAT is what we could be heading for.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 04:13 AM EDT |
That's the beauty on this: SUN only managed the companies to make JAVA
cross-platform without SUN writing implementations, they wrote the JVM reference
implementation for desktop but they didn't wrote the implementation made by
mobile companies, also it's presumible that most of the JVM porting to other
processors was not made by SUN.
The reason why SUN went against Microsoft was because they were selling MS-VM as
JVM, they used the JAVA logo without producing JAVA compatible code a different
story when they launched J# which made the same (migrate from JAVA to Win32) but
without the legal burden of the JAVA compliance.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|