|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
oh he knows alright.
he's trying to suggest the man's actions were a frolic , and his words not
company policy.
bsf have little choice but to try and discredit macnealy, schwartz et al. expect
coordinated action from oracle. florian is already well down that road on his
blog.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: jheisey on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 07:36 PM EDT |
Boies was asking a misleading question again: neither Harmony nor Android was an
incompatible version of Java, unlike Microsoft's version. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 07:41 PM EDT |
It was never a policy of sun, if it was the would be some documentary
evidence. There is a huge amount of evidence to the contrary.
The single only piece of evidence is one blog entry.
Also if google though that sun was giving them a free pass they would have
got it in writing, they didn't, and almost certainly because they never would
have got it.
If sun had wanted java free they would have releed it free but they did not,
they tried to put in a lot of legal protection for java. This case is about
google finding a loophole to that protection.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: NobodyYouKnow on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 08:39 PM EDT |
...Boies asked if it was ever Sun’s policy to allow any company to
implement an incompatible version of Java so long as they didn’t call it
Java.
I can't see how Sun could stop you from writing software
that's incompatible with Java and then not calling it Java, because then they
could stop you from writing anything at all except Java. And surely they can't
do that. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:01 PM EDT |
Is it me, or is this an effort to introduce a new theory, at
best? 'Incompatible' versions of Java have not been the
issue, until now. There has been a fairly clear consistency
in that it ain't Java until it's TCK-approved, but there has
been nothing to suggest action against non-Java, non-TCK'd
projects that use the Java language, if not the logo.
Are we to accept the logic that it's okay if someone uses
the Java logo with TCK-approved Java, but they can only use
a specification-compliant Java for any Java language usage,
TCK-checked or not? Furthermore, Java is GPL'd, but users
are oppressively hindered when it comes to tinkering with
the language. Yeah. Right.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 10:51 PM EDT |
A non answer to a meaningless question.
"Is that all you've got?"[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: s65_sean on Friday, April 27 2012 @ 05:25 AM EDT |
Sun sued MS for making their java incompatible, but once Microsoft renamed their
product to J++ and stopped calling it java, Sun stopped pursuing MS over their
product being incompatible.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
