>This is a complete dramatization. Are you copying 10k lines of code from a licensed code base into your project without permission and using it in your commercial product? To point back to the substance of the thread and Oracle's claims... Google didn't copy any of Oracle/Sun's Java source code base into Android Java. Oracle lawyers acknowledge this. Instead, Google copied the API of function name spellings and also…
The problem isn't that programmers will have to get more creative with naming, it's that it will be fundamentally impossible for pieces of software owned by different entities to communicate over shared names without an explicit license agreement. That's a much, much bigger deal.
Designing an API is a creative act. An API is source code. Witness thousands of languages, all with recognizably different standard libraries, including languages like Go or Dart created by Google themselves. The problem is less with individual examples like "max" vs "maximum" or "write" vs "scribble", but more with thousands of packages, classes and methods, 99% of which have the exact names and structure as the Sun…
> The problem is less with individual examples like "max" vs "maximum" or "write" vs "scribble", but more with thousands of packages, classes and methods, 99% of which have the exact names and structure as the Sun's Java ones. That is blatant theft. You know, it might be worth asking the engineer who wrote java.lang.Math how he came up with those names. Actually, you don't--he already answered it one of the amici bri…
Perhaps the Sun engineer did indeed copy from UNIX to some mild degree The line between "inspired from" and "copied from" is a fine line indeed. When does a term stop being proprietary and enter the vernacular of a specific profession or of humanity at large? I lean rather liberal on this question, and I hope the law will too. OTOH, what is blatant theft is for your 'original' work to overlap 99%, in both names and structure, to prior work. Google engaged in blatant theft, there is no doubt about it. We are not even talking about a derived work, we are talking about copying word for word a substantial part of somebody else's work.
> Google didn't copy any of Oracle/Sun's Java source code base into Android Java. Oracle lawyers acknowledge this. That's not true, there were nine lines of source code (range check) copied verbatim, not counting the 11,500 lines of API declarations. But the API declarations are source code, too. > If Oracle ultimately wins, it seems like millions of programmers will have to reach for a thesaurus to find synonyms to…
IIRC Judge Alsup (the original judge, and the only person in this whole shit-show who knows anything about programming) ruled against this, as he determined that there were only so many ways to write a range-checking function. He said it was entirely plausible that the Google developer would have come up with the exact same function independently.
> IIRC Judge Alsup (the original judge, and the only person in this whole shit-show who knows anything about programming) ruled against this, as he determined that there were only so many ways to write a range-checking function.
No, it was found to be a copyright infringement in the first trial; it's one point on which Oracle sought to have the district court upheld and Google sought to have it overturned in the original set of appeals and cross-appeals. (While on many other issues they split the other way.)
>This is a complete dramatization. Are you copying 10k lines of code from a licensed code base into your project without permission and using it in your commercial product? To point back to the substance of the thread and Oracle's claims... Google didn't copy any of Oracle/Sun's Java source code base into Android Java. Oracle lawyers acknowledge this. Instead, Google copied the API of function name spellings and also…
> If Oracle ultimately wins, it seems like millions of programmers will have to reach for a thesaurus to find synonyms to name functions.
I think you are a bit off the mark on this line. (mostly agree with the rest of your post)
Google's goal was to make a white-room implementation of java that was 100% api compatible. This was explicitly to avoid licensing Java while still being Java compatible.
It's bad for programmers everywhere. If Oracle wins, you couldn't reimplement a compatible version of anything that's not open source. You couldn't make a third-party implementation of a corporate-owned programming language without putting yourself at risk. Imagine you're a company using some Oracle database, and you want to reimplement some component of that system in order to migrate and escape their vendor lock-in…
by the by... wasn't Oracle's original product a relational database management system (RDBMS) that offered a SQL API... which was invented/copyrighted by IBM ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL#History
Yes and no. Yes, Oracle was a database with a SQL API. Yes, SQL was invented by IBM. No, it wasn't copyrighted by IBM, because at the time, nobody thought you could do that.
>This is a complete dramatization. Are you copying 10k lines of code from a licensed code base into your project without permission and using it in your commercial product? To point back to the substance of the thread and Oracle's claims... Google didn't copy any of Oracle/Sun's Java source code base into Android Java. Oracle lawyers acknowledge this. Instead, Google copied the API of function name spellings and also…
In addition to the specific claims and their validity, one fact remains. Oracle bought Sun for the sole purpose of suing Google . Full stop. I used to date someone involved in the case when it was just getting started. Oracle can go pound sand.
Everyone seems to have forgotten that Sun licensed Java under an open license that would have allowed Google to use these interfaces without issue, if they had met certain criteria for supporting the full Java platform. Google essential thought "Well, we have too much bloat, and these parts are totally unneeded in our platform, so we're going to strip them out."
It's bad for programmers everywhere. If Oracle wins, you couldn't reimplement a compatible version of anything that's not open source. You couldn't make a third-party implementation of a corporate-owned programming language without putting yourself at risk. Imagine you're a company using some Oracle database, and you want to reimplement some component of that system in order to migrate and escape their vendor lock-in…
>you want to reimplement some component of that system That's patching and is already disallowed by licenses in USA, but allowed by law, but that law was goofed up by a court.
Could you be more specific? What law allows it, and how was it goofed up by a court?
> The problem is less with individual examples like "max" vs "maximum" or "write" vs "scribble", but more with thousands of packages, classes and methods, 99% of which have the exact names and structure as the Sun's Java ones. That is blatant theft. You know, it might be worth asking the engineer who wrote java.lang.Math how he came up with those names. Actually, you don't--he already answered it one of the amici bri…
Perhaps the Sun engineer did indeed copy from UNIX to some mild degree The line between "inspired from" and "copied from" is a fine line indeed. When does a term stop being proprietary and enter the vernacular of a specific profession or of humanity at large? I lean rather liberal on this question, and I hope the law will too. OTOH, what is blatant theft is for your 'original' work to overlap 99%, in both names and s…
Look up the names of the functions in java.lang.Math. They are exactly the names and semantics used in the libm functions. Even down to the presence of the atan2 function which computes tan¯¹(y / x).
(You could also point out that JavaScript literally lifts java.lang.Math and java.util.Date into JS code as well, down to Date.getYear returning the Gregorian year - 1900).
> If Oracle ultimately wins, it seems like millions of programmers will have to reach for a thesaurus to find synonyms to name functions. We'll have to waste brain cycles coming up and alternative spellings of methods to stay away from copyright infringement. This isn't how copyright works though. It's neither necessary or sufficient. If you copy an API but change the words using a thesaurus you are still copying it…
> This isn't how copyright works though. It's neither necessary or sufficient. If you copy an API but change the words using a thesaurus you are still copying it so it would still be infringement. If by happenstance you come up with the same wording in your API, then that would not be copyright infringement because you didn't copy anything. That also isn't how copyright works. You're essentially asserting copyright o…