Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

javascript.tm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 135 posts

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#121

Post by bryanrasmussen »

lkirkwood wrote: post #120
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but "JS" implies it is some sort of amalgam of the J and S programming languages - or it doesn't and probably the Java implication doesn't exist anymore either - who really, on hearing the name in a modern context is going to think "hey, it must be a scripting version of that one really old programming language granddad in the office is always reminiscing about"?

... do you think people don't use Java anymore?

sure they use it, but I sort of feel the groups that use it and JavaScript are no longer likely to cross over each other, and thus new devs will not be making the historical mistake of rhetorical misunderstanding that was made in the old days.

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#122

Post by xigoi »

olliej wrote: post #45
merb wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well done stuff probably is not enforceable, like App Store. That is too generic

I'm not sure - trademark law is tricky - "The Container Store" is trademarked (and while you might say "App Store" is too generic, but I don't recall the term existing prior to "The App Store", so this might be a "Hoover" or similar situation). I remember McDonald's used[?] to have "All Beef" as a trademark for their burger patties (I also recall them getting in trouble in NZ as just because they're "All Beef" brand…

App Store is not the same case as Hoover because the name is a literal description of what it is. It’s like a coffee producer trademarking the name Coffee.

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#123

Post by degaart »

mp05 wrote: post #76
elzbardico wrote: post #72

People falling in the ages old trap of antropormophizing Oracle executives.

Have you seen Larry lately? How do you look like that at 80 years old? He must be a cyborg.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Ellison#Health

He abstains from alcohol and drugs, maybe?

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#124

Post by nineteen999 »

yarg wrote: post #112
cxr wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Geez, not this shit again. (One of the many ways you could tell Oracle was doomed in trying to find and convincingly argue a tenable position against Google: half the people half the time argued that Google should be sued for implementing Java, and the other half the time argued that they should be sued for not implementing Java.)

If you can't run jars, it's not a java implementation.

You mean zip files with a jar extension?

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#125

Post by kragen »

yarg wrote: post #111
falcor84 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I wasn't aware of that - what did they change?

The ability to launch a jar?

to me this sounds like a claim that gcc on linux isn't really a c compiler because linux can't run a .com file compiled with turbo c for ms-dos

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#126

Post by vips7L »

pipeline_peak wrote: post #103

>GraalVM is far from a canonical JavaScript implementation; engines like V8, JavaScriptCore, and SpiderMonkey hold that role. >you must dig into the documentation to find its support. Okay but it’s in the documentation which ruins your whole “abandonment” argument. Even still, they clearly have their own use of JavaScript, albeit not “canonical”, whatever the author meant by that bitter refutal.

I don’t really understand the argument either. GraalJS is an implementation of ES2023 with additional features from graal on top.

Just because its implementation wasn’t originally for a web browser makes it not “canonical”?

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#127

Post by yarg »

nineteen999 wrote: post #124
yarg wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you can't run jars, it's not a java implementation.

You mean zip files with a jar extension?

Yes the external format of a jar file is a zip - but there is also a specification for the internal structure and file formats, as well as information like the minimum java version required to execute (and all sorts of other crap, I can't really say since I haven't actually looked - these are just some sane enough minimums).

But anyway, no need to be snide.

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#128

Post by yarg »

kragen wrote: post #125
yarg wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ability to launch a jar?

to me this sounds like a claim that gcc on linux isn't really a c compiler because linux can't run a .com file compiled with turbo c for ms-dos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write_once,_run_anywhere

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#129

Post by alberth »

xigoi wrote: post #122
olliej wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure - trademark law is tricky - "The Container Store" is trademarked (and while you might say "App Store" is too generic, but I don't recall the term existing prior to "The App Store", so this might be a "Hoover" or similar situation). I remember McDonald's used[?] to have "All Beef" as a trademark for their burger patties (I also recall them getting in trouble in NZ as just because they're "All Beef" brand…

App Store is not the same case as Hoover because the name is a literal description of what it is. It’s like a coffee producer trademarking the name Coffee.

Like Apple suing over trademark to an apple fruit producer.

https://www.wired.com/story/apple-vs-apples-trademark-battle...

Re: Oracle, it's time to free JavaScript

#130

Post by yencabulator »

Finnucane wrote: post #19
sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oracle's lawyers dutifully renew the trademark annually. Despite their lack of active use, this leaves the door open for future use. It creates a nebulous state where Oracle could choose to initiate a costly legal action against someone using the trademark. One of those situations where the law can be on your side but the real problem is if you can afford the legal battle.

As the letter notes, Oracle has never actually taken any kind of action to keep people from using the name. They don't even make performative reminders. They know their claim on the mark is weak and they aren't going to waste a lot of lawyer time on it. But it's Oracle, so they won't willingly give up anything that might be worth more than a dime. This is just to note their continued non-action when the USPTO is aske…

Meanwhile, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41559829
Post reply on HN