Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or JawaScript
Disney enters the chat
[deleted]
Dear Oracle, Please Release the JavaScript Trademark
111–120 of 146 posts
Re: Dear Oracle, Please Release the JavaScript Trademark
#112> Yet it is obviously the right move to trade a worthless trademark for brand marketing and goodwill.
Just to play devils advocate... I think Oracle has so little goodwill with devs (quite the opposite), that releasing the JS trademark probably won't even move the needle.
Re: Dear Oracle, Please Release the JavaScript Trademark
#113I feel like this isn't a problem that needs solving. The existence of a trademark doesn't prevent you using that trademark (as in referencing it like "this app is written in JavaScript".) Clearly Oracle is not defending the trademark, and it is likely its too late to start. Worst case they pick on you, you change your docs to say Ecmascript. Frankly it's safer where it is, than being released so the USPO or something…
Exactly, if you don't defend your trademark, you don't effectively have one. It's not enough to have a trademark registered. You have to actively go after people when they infringe. It's not optional. You can't be selective about it either. Oracle has not done that. There are countless examples of people using the javascript name, incorporating it in books, articles, products, derivative works, etc. So, effectively t…
> Oracle would not stand a chance in a court trying to enforce it now.
Assuming that is true (IANAL), do you want to be on the other end of that lawsuit, wasting your time and money?
Re: Dear Oracle, Please Release the JavaScript Trademark
#114Haha asking Oracle to give up legal rights. Good luck with that :) :) :) PS I never understood why they called it JavaScript since it has nothing to do with Java.
If I understand correctly it was a marketing thing (cof cof C#), but also the creators actually had plans to collaborate with Sun and (somehow?) integrate the language with Java.
Oh they did. You could call into the JVM from JS even in early 2010s Firefox. Called LiveScript, I believe.
Re: Dear Oracle, Please Release the JavaScript Trademark
#115Can’t you just call it ECMAScript, or are they somehow different these days? Guy Steele told me once that Sun registered it with ECMA so they could tell people (governments?) that it was a registered standard and that ECMA was the easiest/fastest/most compliant way to get there. I’d always thought that ECMA was a weird place to register it.
Can’t you just call it ECMAScript We're at about the right point in the timeline to start calling it YavaScript which both solves the trademark problem and keeps us on the path laid out in prophesy.
Giggled, imagining all those muscle memory typos. It took me a while to start typing "myself" properly instead of "mysql", thanks to Postgres.
Re: Dear Oracle, Please Release the JavaScript Trademark
#116> Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphising Larry Ellison. You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' -- lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about Oracle. — Brian Cantrill (https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=33m1s)
Quote previously posted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15886728
:-)
Re: Dear Oracle, Please Release the JavaScript Trademark
#117> Oracle does not have any products using the trademark … Oracle doesn’t even participate in the development of any of the JavaScript engines Strangely ignorant from Ryan - Oracle does maintain a JavaScript engine product - GraalJS. In fact is it possibly the only modern engine available under a commercial licence?
Is GraalJS a fork of Node.js?
Because I doubt Ry would write this article if he was one of the top contributors to GraalJS which is what this graph says:
Re: Dear Oracle, Please Release the JavaScript Trademark
#118It does sound confusing. Just like the different versions of java and distributions that we have now as well. I don’t think they’ll ever do it though, given the history of oracle
What is confusing about there being like 10 OpenJDK forks, but for all practical purposes they are identical even more so than linux distros. And if you want paid support you ca choose for example OracleJDK, which is otherwise feature-equivalent to OpenJDK (as it is also just a tiny fork), which’s LTS version is free for the next LTS+1 year. This is the same model as Red Hat Linux vs Fedora.
Gets even worse with IBM/Eclipse marketing OpenJ9 with OpenJdk which has nothing do with the OpenJdk project and is a completely different VM implementation.
Re: Dear Oracle, Please Release the JavaScript Trademark
#119> Oracle does not have any products using the trademark … Oracle doesn’t even participate in the development of any of the JavaScript engines Strangely ignorant from Ryan - Oracle does maintain a JavaScript engine product - GraalJS. In fact is it possibly the only modern engine available under a commercial licence?
Is GraalJS a fork of Node.js? Because I doubt Ry would write this article if he was one of the top contributors to GraalJS which is what this graph says: https://github.com/oracle/graaljs/graphs/contributors
Must be a fork because I found my own commits haha
Re: Dear Oracle, Please Release the JavaScript Trademark
#120> Oracle does not have any products using the trademark … Oracle doesn’t even participate in the development of any of the JavaScript engines Strangely ignorant from Ryan - Oracle does maintain a JavaScript engine product - GraalJS. In fact is it possibly the only modern engine available under a commercial licence?
Is GraalJS a fork of Node.js? Because I doubt Ry would write this article if he was one of the top contributors to GraalJS which is what this graph says: https://github.com/oracle/graaljs/graphs/contributors
[deleted]