21–30 of 113 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Java, is it the thing they used to sue on API copyright? Good demonstration of how to mess with "open-source" IMO. If you remove what they got from Sun, what reminds?
That is a different topic altogether. I'm referring to Open JDK. Ever heard of the fasted embedded database engine called Berkeley DB. Doesn't matter came from where, Sun or what ever is still being developed and contributed in the open source environment.
And the Java topic is not different altogether, it is disturbing to claim to be "open-source friendly" when you release an open-source implementation for the JVM but sue on the basis that the API is copyrighted.
What is off-topic it talking about Oracle at all in this thread ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Java, is it the thing they used to sue on API copyright? Good demonstration of how to mess with "open-source" IMO. If you remove what they got from Sun, what reminds?
That is a different topic altogether. I'm referring to Open JDK. Ever heard of the fasted embedded database engine called Berkeley DB. Doesn't matter came from where, Sun or what ever is still being developed and contributed in the open source environment.
From Wikipedia:
-----
Oracle Corporation makes versions 2.0 and higher of Berkeley DB available under a dual license.[15] The sleepycat license license is a 2-clause BSD license with an additional copyleft clause similar to the GNU GPL version 2's Section 3, requiring source code of an application using Berkeley DB to be made available for a nominal fee.
As of Berkeley DB release 6.0, the Oracle Corporation has relicensed Berkeley DB under the GNU AGPL v3.[16]
As of July 2011, Oracle's list price for non-copyleft Berkeley DB licenses varies between 900 and 13,800 USD per processor.
-----
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EDIT (To Clarify) Warning I am Strongly Anti-Apple Bias: Apple has a fairly decent Open Source history. http://www.opensource.apple.com There is things to complain about but there are more I am concerned with in regards to Open Source (Oracle). EDIT: I don't like Apple's products or the way the conduct business BUT I think they have done more good for Open Source than bad.
I can sense some Strong Anti-Oracle Bias here. Oracle is one of the major contributor to open source, see the lineup here, chances are you're using some of them: https://oss.oracle.com/ starts with Java
Trust them to do the right thing at your peril.
I hope they will open Swift, like Microsoft is doing with C#.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/F_Sharp_(programming_language...
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_(programming_language...
While it's wonderful they did this, as a short rant: I hate when companies just feel the urge to add a random sentence or two to an existing license, particularly in cases like these: "3. Neither the name of the copyright holder(s) nor the names of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. No license is granted to the trademarks o…
I'm not sure I follow your argument. Obviously, different individuals/organizations desire different licenses for the software they produce. If that wasn't the case, one could argue that only one software license should exist. Also, as we all know, software licenses are a fairly tricky legal matter. Perhaps Apple's lawyers just decided that adding that sentence is safer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
EDIT (To Clarify) Warning I am Strongly Anti-Apple Bias: Apple has a fairly decent Open Source history. http://www.opensource.apple.com There is things to complain about but there are more I am concerned with in regards to Open Source (Oracle). EDIT: I don't like Apple's products or the way the conduct business BUT I think they have done more good for Open Source than bad.
I can sense some Strong Anti-Oracle Bias here. Oracle is one of the major contributor to open source, see the lineup here, chances are you're using some of them: https://oss.oracle.com/ starts with Java
Fucking no.
Effectively all of Oracle's "open source" things come from Sun Microsystems, upon which Oracle happily latched onto and sucked dry.
Oracle has what's called the "sidaM Touch". It's like the Midas Touch, but instead of gold, everything Oracle touches turns to shit:
Java -> shit (though maybe slightly less so now).
Solaris -> shit. OpenSolaris -> shit, now dead (thank the Lord for illumos).
OpenOffice -> shit.
GridEngine -> shit. Lustre -> almost became shit and died; would have if it weren't for the Oracle-side devs jumping ship.
NetBeans -> in the process of becoming shit.
MySQL -> shit (though it pretty much already was; somehow, though, Oracle managed to make that worse and prompt the existence of MariaDB); I realize this wasn't Sun's, but it's still an open-source project that Oracle assaulted, robbed, and left to die on the cold streets by the dock where Larry Ellison's (admittedly pretty badass) sailboat is docked.
OpenDS -> dead (though it was mercifully forked into OpenDJ).
Project Wonderland -> now limping around as "Open Wonderland" after Oracle forcibly amputated its leg.
By some miracle, the only things that haven't completely turned to shit or died (or both) yet are Virtualbox and SPARC (though OpenSPARC is effectively dead since Oracle didn't continue it).
While it's wonderful they did this, as a short rant: I hate when companies just feel the urge to add a random sentence or two to an existing license, particularly in cases like these: "3. Neither the name of the copyright holder(s) nor the names of any contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. No license is granted to the trademarks o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Java, is it the thing they used to sue on API copyright? Good demonstration of how to mess with "open-source" IMO. If you remove what they got from Sun, what reminds?
Sun would have sued Google if they had the money for the lawyers[0]. Initially I was partnering with Google, but now I side with Oracle's decision, as it is now proven how Google just pulled a Microsoft and fragmented the Java eco-system. Now we are stuck with partial Java 7 assuming 4.4 devices, good luck using try-with resources in lower versions and no plan for future versions as of the Android Developers Fireside…
I'm not sure that's a good enough reason so say that it's "ok" to claim that an API is copyrightable. The idea that I might have to ask someone permission just to make API-compatible alternate implementation seems ridiculous.