|
|
|
| Authored by: nsomos on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 08:43 AM EDT |
Parent opines
"I think the trial shows that if you use Java you're
safe even if the purported owner of the language sues you."
You are safe if you have been most careful in your development,
can pay millions to lawyers and have the resources of Google
to find prior art.
And just how many companies could be wiped out by Larry simply
huffing and puffing and blowing a whiff of a lawsuit at them?
For more modest companies, 'winning' a lawsuit, can mean having
lost everything else. It has happened plenty of times before.
Do you really believe as things start to change,
that Larry will get any more reasonable?
I don't consider that safe at all.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 08:43 AM EDT |
Your use of java indirectly results in profits to Oracle. As you are supporting
the idea that Java is ok, and therefore other people will still give Oracle
money for it.
Don't use Java, use GNU Classpath, or Dalvik, or Harmony. Let the Java name
die. (It's the only bit of all this that Oracle actually own, anyway)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 08:59 AM EDT |
I don't think you should draw that conclusion.
The case means that *Google* is safe, not you.
So you can safely use Android. Java? I wouldn't
say this case has said that.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 11:44 AM EDT |
I personally can't afford to spend the - quite probably - millions that
Google spent defending themselves.
They were able to select that option
because they could afford to.
When in negotiations with Oracle, Google
was obviously provided terms by Oracle that Google could not accept - and
therefore select the option to go to Trial and defend.
Me? I'd likely
have to roll over and completely give up... I doubt I could afford Oracle's
price requirements. So no matter how much "in the right" I believed I was and
how much I thought Oracle's claims totally bogus... I simply wouldn't be able to
afford to properly defend myself against such claims.
As I said: I guess
it depends on how you define "safe".
As a side note: I once looked into
Oracle's license agreement with regards the free home version of their database.
I was considering using it as the back-end to design my own stock database for
personal investment purposes. I was unsure how they would view such a "personal
use" relative to their license agreement so I sent them a letter outlining what
I wanted to do and whether or not that was ok by their licensing terms. They
responded with:
Ask your Lawyer!
My immediate thought was:
Company
X has license terms I have a question on which Company X has no desire to
clarify..... red flag, danger, danger Will Robinson! Do NOT use Company X's
products!
So I went with PostgreSQL instead. I feel safe using PostgreSQL.
I would not be feeling safe using Oracle's products at home.
At this
point I understand there's a potential conflict where it could be viewed the
response was in the context of "representing me". However, I don't think it's
unreasonable why they couldn't respond in the context of "representing Oracle
and clarifying Oracle's intent". As a result, if said company that designed
said license has no desire to clarify their own intent on the
license:
Danger! Danger Will Robinson!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, May 31 2012 @ 01:24 PM EDT |
Won't decrease my use either, since there is no way to go
below zero.
There is not even a JRE on this system.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 01 2012 @ 12:23 PM EDT |
| I think that is now MAJOR consideration, code to Harmony, it's been cleared. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
