Weekly Edition
Return to the Front page
| |||||||||||||
A very grumpy editor's thoughts on Oracle
Many electrons have been expended in the discussion of Oracle's
recently-filed lawsuit against Google alleging patent and copyright
infringements in the Android platform. Your editor is somewhat reluctant
to contribute to the flood; at this point, the amount of real information
which is available is minimal while the amount of speculation is high.
This will be an important case, though; the world will be watching to see
how it turns out. So here are a few thoughts to add to the pile.
The patents all cover various aspects of the implementation of Java-based systems. Some of them seem rather trivial; others are quite broad. One of them, for example, would appear to cover the concept of a just-in-time compiler. Those wanting details can see the complaint itself, which lists the patents in question, and this page on the End Software Patents wiki for a look at each patent and the beginning of an attempt to collect prior art. The short summary, though, is that we're just dealing with another set of obnoxious software patents; these are not the silliest ones your editor has ever seen. The patents used for Apple's attack on Android cover much more fundamental concepts. The patents may or may not stand up to a determined prior-art defense, but chances are that it will not come to that. Prior art is a hard way to go when defending against patents, which enter the courtroom under the halo of presumed validity. What we may see, instead, is an attempt to push the inadequate Bilski decision to get the whole mess invalidated as a set of unpatentable abstract ideas. That would be a risky course which would take years to play out, but there is the potential, at least, of dealing a severe blow to software patents in general. One can always dream. Meanwhile, there are many outstanding questions about whether Oracle (or, more precisely, Sun before Oracle) has licensed these patents to the world, either implicitly through the GPLv2 code release, or explicitly via patent grants. Only a court will be able to provide a definitive answer to that sort of question, but it is not obvious that such a license exists. The explicit patent grants are generally tied to exact implementations of the language and library specifications, with neither subsets nor supersets allowed. Android's Dalvik is not such an implementation. There may be an implicit patent grant with Sun's GPL-licensed code, but Android does not use that code. Dalvik is not governed by Sun's license, so it may be hard to claim protection under the patent grant which is (implicitly) found in that license. But, then, your editor is not a lawyer and his opinions on any subject are known to have a tenuous grip on reality; just ask your editor's children. The complaint also alleges copyright infringement, but no specifics are available at this time. There is some speculation that Oracle sees an "unauthorized" implementation of the Java specification as an infringement on that specification's copyright. For now, though, we must wait to see what Oracle is really claiming. This is not an attack on free software in general, despite the fact that Google would like to see the community view it that way. It is an attack on a specific platform (much of which is free software) by a rapacious company which has just bought an expensive asset and wants to squeeze some revenue from it. It seems quite likely that this suit would have happened in the same way if Dalvik were proprietary. Even if Oracle gets everything it wants, the damage to the wider free software community will be limited. We were strong before the advent of Android, and would remain strong if it were to be removed from the scene. That said, we are certainly stronger with a free Android than without, and we surely do not want to see a thriving free software platform taken down (or taxed) by a patent troll. What is going on here is that the mobile market is seen as a gold mine, and everybody is trying to grab a piece of it in one way or another. Some companies are most interested in gaining their slice through the creation of mobile platforms that people actually want to buy and use; others are more inclined toward getting theirs through the courts. And some companies are doing both. As a result, anybody trying to work in this market is currently embroiled in lawsuits; see this diagram in the New York Times for a summary of where things stood back in March. It will be most interesting to see if this whole mess can be resolved. In the past, such situations have led to the creation of patent pools - not a free-software-friendly solution. Despite this suit, and despite the withdrawal of OpenSolaris, Oracle seems to be determined to continue to work with the community on other fronts. The company claims to contribute to a long list of projects, and it employs a number of well-respected developers. One assumes that those projects will not start rejecting contributions from those developers. But neither will those projects deal with Oracle in the future without wondering, if just for a moment, what the company's motives and goals really are. It may not be an attack on free software in general, but this lawsuit has shown that Oracle is willing to use software patents to attack a specific free software project that it disagrees with. This move will kill a lot of the trust between Oracle and the development community; now one cannot help but wonder what might happen if, say, an OpenSolaris or MySQL fork starts to overshadow the original. Non-free platforms should be avoided. Sun released much of the Java code under the GPL - eventually - but it never made Java truly free. The company went out of its way to retain control over the language and of any implementations of it; control over the specifications, copyright licensing policies forcing control over the code, and software patents held in reserve do not add up to a platform one can trust. Sun seemingly feared forks above all else, and so went out of its way to eliminate the freedom to fork whenever possible. The result was a non-free and hazardous platform; Oracle now seems to be saying that it cannot even be implemented independently without infringing both patents and copyrights. This kind of suit would not have happened had Google decided to make its own version of, say, Python. There is no absolute security in this world. But there is relative security, and, by now, it should be clear that the relative security of a platform owned and controlled by a single corporation is quite low. Corporations, by their nature, are not trustworthy beasts; even the most well-intentioned company is only one bad quarter (or one takeover) away from becoming an aggressive troll. Sun was unlikely to sue over a not-really-Java virtual machine, but Sun has been replaced by a company with a rather different mindset. That company now has control over a platform that many people have based their businesses on, and, as we can see, it will react strongly when it sees a potential threat to that control. How all this will turn out is anybody's guess. Perhaps Google will pay the troll to have some peace to continue to pursue the goal of total Android world domination. Perhaps some parts of Android will become more closed. Or perhaps Google will fight to the end while simultaneously executing an emergency backup plan which involves shifting the whole platform to the Ruby language. One thing that can be said is that, as long as software patents remain a threat, we will continue to see cases like this. (Log in to post comments)
A very grumpy editor's thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 17, 2010 15:49 UTC (Tue) by yokem_55 (subscriber, #10498) [Link]
Is there any information on Oracle's copyright claims against Google? I've seen rumblings that the dex java bytecode to dalvik bytecode compiler may be incorporating bits of the original java class libraries into the resulting dx file, instead of replacing them with the harmony derived ones. Or is Oracle trying to claim copyright on the API of the java class libraries?
IP issues Posted Aug 25, 2010 9:00 UTC (Wed) by Blaisorblade (guest, #25465) [Link]
The article mentions possible copyright issues on the specification - which would be crazy (i.e. prevent independent reimplementations by default). It is true that the Java license seems to have an exception for proper reimplementations which excludes subsets and supersets (for the standard namespaces), and this probably covers reuse of the specification.
Anyway, here's an old article forecasting this lawsuit, because of the patent issues:
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 17, 2010 16:28 UTC (Tue) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
Our editor says:
> In the past, such situations have led to the creation of patent pools - not a free-software-friendly solution.
But isn't OIN, the Open Inventions Network, such a free software friendly pool? The GNU Java implementation (GCC/gcj/libgcj, based on GNU Classpath) is on the "Linux Environment Components" list of OIN. Both Google and Oracle are licensees of OIN and have signed on to not sue each other over such implementations. http://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2010/08/13/oracle-trie...
So wouldn't a solution be extending the OIN patent pool and the core system components it protects to include alternative java implementations (like IcedTea/OpenJDK & Dalvik), so that all participants know to respect the patent peace around it? The community of licensees is actually pretty big and seems to include all the major names: http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/licensees.php
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 17, 2010 16:48 UTC (Tue) by dmarti (subscriber, #11625) [Link]
I wouldn't be surprised if that was one of the alternatives that Google's negotiators suggested as part of the negotiations that broke down, resulting in this case. (Google lawyers probably spent the time between the On2 acquisition and the WebM release quietly paying off the best-positioned video compression trolls.) Did they not offer enough, or did the idea of a widespread, free almost-Java offend someone's aesthetic sensibilities?
patent pools Posted Aug 17, 2010 17:53 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
OIN is a free software friendly "defensive patent pool".
MPEG-LA is an example of the other kind of patent pool. I'm actually currently looking for a good name for the bad type of patent pool.
patent pools Posted Aug 17, 2010 18:12 UTC (Tue) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link]
patent carousel (that's how some sharks catch herring)
If not obvious, some of those are probably off the mark. Are you after a different angle altogether?
patent pools Posted Aug 17, 2010 19:19 UTC (Tue) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] The obvious term would be "Patent Cartel".
patent pools Posted Aug 17, 2010 21:41 UTC (Tue) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link]
>Patent cartel.
That's good! I chose (related) syndicate because of other negative connotations.
patent pools Posted Aug 18, 2010 0:57 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Yep, I think "patent cartel" is the best. Before that suggestion, I was going to go with your "gang" suggestion. "Cesspool" (and similar) is accurate, but I'm looking for something that could make it's way into normal patent policy discussions, like the way "patent troll" and "patent thicket" have.
patent pools Posted Aug 18, 2010 9:44 UTC (Wed) by etienne (subscriber, #25256) [Link]
<OT>
Anything, as long as you do not involve the shark species for humans of questionable behaviour. Yes, most sharks are not vegetarian, like your kitten or you puppy. Once, go and see a hammerhead, a whale shark or a guitar shark in his own environment...
A scuba-diver.
patent pools Posted Aug 17, 2010 18:13 UTC (Tue) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]
Bad patent pool = patent cesspool
patent pools Posted Aug 17, 2010 18:31 UTC (Tue) by pebolle (guest, #35204) [Link]
> I'm actually currently looking for a good name for the bad type of patent pool.
Troll Nest
patent pools Posted Aug 17, 2010 20:46 UTC (Tue) by vblum (guest, #1151) [Link]
well, offensive patent pool ;)?
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 17, 2010 21:30 UTC (Tue) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] I guess OIN qualifies as a free software friendly patent pool, but I don't know if the concept itself is a free software friendly solution. OIN is designed to protect certain products (essentially the list matches whatever is in RHEL and probably Novell Linux), and these products happen to be FOSS. But it is not a generic defense pool to cover FOSS software in general, for instance in the spirit of FOSS you could've expected a solution that equally covered GNU Hurd, OpenSolaris, etc...As a more practical and personal example, a small part of MySQL, the client library, is covered by the OIN list. So now we have forked MySQL and call it MariaDB. The client library covered by OIN is identical in MariaDB and MySQL. My understanding is that we are not covered by OIN, just because we are not MySQL, even if the code is the same. (Come to think of it, all distribution kernels are also "forks" of the official Linus Torvalds kernel. I have no idea how exactly those are covered, I'm sure they are.) OIN for sure is the best we've got so far (even if it's imho not that much). But a really FOSS friendly solution would be something that is generic and available to all FOSS software universally (or even just one license would be a good start, like all GPL software), protect the right to forking and not just the original product, etc... I should say that whenever I've tried to look at OIN, I feel I dont really understand it, so I may have understood it wrong and in that case apologize pre-emptively.
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 18, 2010 0:25 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] I'm also unsure about OIN. They do some good work. Buying Microsoft's OpenGL patents probably did save us from a troll attack, and I'm glad that the members have agreed not to attack the list of approved programs. As for helping TomTom, I haven't found a good explanation of how OIN helped. MS asked TomTom to pay. TomTom joined OIN. TomTom payed MS. I don't think OIN's patent pool can be used to threaten MS. Some or most of the members already have patent non-aggression pacts with MS, and even if these didn't exist, the members would rightly be reluctant to let their patent be used in a first strike against MS. As for defensive publication, that's a double edged sword. For one, it tells trolls what innovative areas we're working in, thus increasing patent risk, and it helps patent drafters to draft sturdy patents that won't get thrown out later. Overall, I think they're clearly a force for good, but I think they're overestimated by the media. ...but there are surely things I've missed. I haven't looked too deeply into them.
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 18, 2010 11:50 UTC (Wed) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] Hi CiaranNow that you're here, what is your personal take on the Defensive Patent License? On first sight it looks like "copyleft for patents", which sounds great. It's also a general solution for all patents and not working through some specific software product (Linux) or specific license (GPL). I'm kind of hopeful about it (at least it is a step further in the right direction from OIN).
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 18, 2010 13:04 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] I haven't looked into it in great depth. I'm generally sceptical of "market" solutions, so I focus on legislation, courts, and government policies. The reason I'm sceptical is that all previous "market" solutions have been disappointing, and because its success depends so heavily on adoption. I usually judge solutions by the question: Will it make it safe for developers to support h.264? And the DPL won't. The DPL might be good, like OIN is, but it's still only a partial solution to a small part of the problem. "Copyleft for patents" doesn't sound accurate, AFAICT. It seems more like a patent non-aggression pact, or a demilitarised zone. I've a short en.swpat.org page: Defensive Patent License. The en.swpat.org wiki is a general information resource, so it aims to documents topics like the DPL from all angles, not just my opinion. If you've links or explanations about why DPL is an important step forward, they'd be very welcome.
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 18, 2010 17:56 UTC (Wed) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] I haven't looked into it in great depth. I'm generally sceptical of "market" solutions, so I focus on legislation, courts, and government policies.Interesting, to me FOSS proves that we can solve problems ourselves, despite lack of cooperation from governments and courts. "Copyleft for patents" doesn't sound accurate, AFAICT. It seems more like a patent non-aggression pact, or a demilitarised zone. Analogues may never be perfect (Creative Commons isn't exactly like open source, but still inspired by it). What always thrilled me about the GPL is the back story that RMS initially saw copyright as something negative, until he realized he can also use copyright to protect his own ideals and invented copyleft. So I see the DPL in a similar light: If we fail to change the law, then we can still neutralize patents one by one. The GPL also didn't "neutralize" copyright immediately, we had to spend decades writing GPL software first! But that might still be faster than waiting for the next SCOTUS ruling :-) There are other aspects about the DPL too that are GPL-like: It's a license, not an organization or corporation (so there is no central control so it cannot "go bad", be acquired, etc...). So it is a virtual pool rather than a real pool. There is one major difference though: When we write useful GPL software, people start using it and they then enter the domain of the GPL. But patents in the DPL pool are in themselves purely passive, so why would someone join the DPL? If the only companies to join the DPL virtual pool are such that would never assert their patents anyway, then nothing has really changed. I've a short en.swpat.org page: Defensive Patent License. The en.swpat.org wiki is a general information resource, so it aims to documents topics like the DPL from all angles, not just my opinion. If you've links or explanations about why DPL is an important step forward, they'd be very welcome. Thanks. Will put it on my todo list, which is a bit long at the moment.
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 18, 2010 18:32 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] RMS initially saw copyright as something negative, until he realized he can also use copyright to protect his own ideals and invented copyleft s/his own ideals/end-user freedom/ Without this distinction, he'd not be justified in saying that copyright can be used for good; he'd be another jerk using copyright to make others do what he wants them to. The goal of copyright and patents is "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92preface.html) and enhancing end-user freedom through copyright achieves this through:
In addition, one may note his political stances (e.g. on the US and Israeli governments) and contrast them with the political stance of the GPL, which is none. The GPL is explicitly not an end-user license agreement and makes no requirements regarding what you may or may not use it for.
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 18, 2010 19:08 UTC (Wed) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] I have nothing to add or correct to your comment, but I sense I should just in case point out that I think RMS's ideals are great, for the precise reasons you write.
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 18, 2010 19:16 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] That's fine, but ideals being great is tangential to the point at hand -- GPL is intended to preserve end-user rights and thereby enhance progress, not to enforce RMS' ideals. In fact, the GPL enhances end-user rights despite and sometimes in contradiction to RMS' ideals (e.g. can be used in torture equipment).
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 18, 2010 19:41 UTC (Wed) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] Ah, now I got your point. Thanks.So when I wrote "RMS ideals", I specifically meant "end user rights" and not any of his other personal ideals.
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 26, 2010 12:01 UTC (Thu) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]
If done right, it would turn non-copyleft Free Software dealing with said patents into effectively copyleft Free Software unless one obtained another patent license. Correct? Is that wanted by the folks using said licenses?
all the best,
drew
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 25, 2010 8:34 UTC (Wed) by Blaisorblade (guest, #25465) [Link]
While I am not fully aware of the details, the uselessness of OIN has been claimed (with reason, it seems) by Florian Mueller. This article specifically mentions OIN's weaknesses:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/08/oracle-sues-googl...
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 25, 2010 8:48 UTC (Wed) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
That seems written by someone advocating for Microsoft software patent trolling as long as they can be payed off under "fair and reasonable" terms. Hohum... His only real point with regard to OIN seems to be that the system components list would need a refresh. So would adding other java implementations to the OIN list, so that it not only protects GNU Java be a good way forward?
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 25, 2010 15:55 UTC (Wed) by Blaisorblade (guest, #25465) [Link]
He's a well-known FOSS advocate, and initiated the NoSoftwarePatents campaign.
While I can understand that you just skimmed it briefly, because it's long, I think your comment is a bit uninformed. His point in that article is that there should be no list at all, or that the definition should not be as arbitrary as it is. However, he also links, in that paragraph, to a more detailed analysis, and I should maybe have linked to that article. To me, what I linked is already enough.
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 25, 2010 16:00 UTC (Wed) by Blaisorblade (guest, #25465) [Link]
Here I give a more detailed analysis of my points, if what I explained wasn't enough.
1) About OIN: quoting from the article: "And I've explained in detail that the OIN doesn't truly protect all of FOSS but only an arbitrarily defined list of program files."
Also, he is not making a point _there_, but mostly linking to a huge number of points he made earlier. Among the other points, he also explains that what you suggest wouldn't work because the group can later arbitrarily restrict the list of protected software [1]; then he goes on with suggestions.
Two articles are linked, which explain various criticism in greater detail; I just skimmed them, but they do explain better. See [1] and [2].
2) About fair and reasonable licensing terms, I didn't quote the article because of that point (point 2), which is not it's main point, I referred to point 4. While I slightly disagree with him, you're definitely unfair.
And my slight disagreement is about how much a corporation should be less evil than allowed by laws. He says something like "we shouldn't be too optimistic", I think "I would hope for more". That's it. If it weren't for _software_ patents, the FRAND licensing would be probably fine.
However, he's just saying that while patents are bad, aggressive patent trolls are worse - and Oracle's worse than Microsoft here. He's not advocating Microsoft; he also explains that he used to fear Microsoft far more.
[1] http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/06/oins-linux-system...; in particular, search "they can pull the rug out from under you" and read on.
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 27, 2010 11:50 UTC (Fri) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
> He's a well-known FOSS advocate, and initiated the NoSoftwarePatents campaign. While I can understand that you just skimmed it briefly, because it's long, I think your comment is a bit uninformed.
Back when he worked with the FFII, Red Hat, MySQL and others to lobby against software patents in Europe that was certainly useful and appreciated. I did read that article and some of his current rants on his blog and his comments on LWN articles and I am not sure his continues attacks on people and organisations that do try to advance the free software and anti-software patent cause is very productive. Trying to defend Microsofts anti Free Software actions, promoting software patent licensing and personal attacks on people who once helped him, but are now no longer paying him to lobby, are very unhelpful.
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 27, 2010 12:13 UTC (Fri) by Blaisorblade (guest, #25465) [Link]
You probably have a point - that is, attacking something well-intentioned might be counterproductive, in general, even if that something were useless in practice.
However, problems with OIN exist (why the **** do they cover only the client library of MySQL???), as pointed out also in this part [1] of the current comment thread (which I maybe previously missed).
[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/400614/
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 27, 2010 12:50 UTC (Fri) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
If your argument is that it would be nice if more was covered by the OIN patent pool then we are in agreement. That is precisely what I am advocating. Lets petition OIN to extend their coverage if they can afford it. It seems that having more free protection if we can get it is good.
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 27, 2010 14:03 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Back when he worked with the FFII, Red Hat, MySQL and others to lobby against software patents in Europe I cooperated with the FFII, but was independent from them. Concerning companies that supported the campaign, mostly it was 1&1 (a German web hoster, the largest one in the EU) and MySQL AB. Red Hat, even though considerably bigger than MySQL already at that point, contributed very little compared to the others and was the only one to discontinue its support for my work against software patents. The others still supported me in connection with patent policy until late 2006, when I decided to move on (well over a year after defeating the software patent directive; there was some EU patent reform proposal on the table that could also have affected software patents, and I fought against that one, too). Disappointingly, a Red Hat person even tried to keep the EU software patent directive alive at the eleventh hour, together with Google (which is pro-software-patent), Sun and others. If you search for the right keywords on this mail archive page, you can find details. current rants on his blog and his comments on LWN articles and I am not sure his continues attacks on people and organisations that do try to advance the free software and anti-software patent cause is very productive. That's a misunderstanding of the intention. It would be helpful if you could give specific examples of "people and organisations that do try to advance the [...] cause" because I never criticize anyone for doing just that. If I do criticize, it's for doing things that are harmful to the cause, and I call some out on hypocrisy. Trying to defend Microsofts anti Free Software actions, promoting software patent licensing That's a gross misrepresentation of what I do and did, and I've clarified it in this comment. Concerning licensing, just to make it clear: my #1 preference is no software patents; my #2 preference is no royalties on existing patents; but as a #3 preference, I'd rather see companies grant licenses than use patents for purely destructive, exclusionary purposes such as Apple vs. HTC or IBM vs. TurboHercules.
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 27, 2010 14:57 UTC (Fri) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
Again you claim a misunderstanding of your intentions. But just your comments on LWN in recent days are example enough. Multiple people, including Jon, have asked you to stop attacking people and call them names.
This attack on Red Hat is another example. You claim to provide a pointer to details, but that link is just an email from someone quoting "facts" from your own blog. That is not calling out hypocrisy, that is just slandering people with facts you made up yourself.
The Red Hat story was not made up by me; I quoted a first-rate parliamentary source Posted Aug 27, 2010 15:08 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Multiple people, including Jon, have asked you to stop attacking people and call them names. Jon clarified that he generally doesn't want to see modified names that make a negative statement. That's nothing about me specifically. You claim to provide a pointer to details, but that link is just an email from someone quoting "facts" from your own blog. That is not calling out hypocrisy, that is just slandering people with facts you made up yourself. Would you please do everyone here the favor and read and think before you write? It's quite inappropriate to accuse me of something just because you didn't even make a serious effort to understand. If you're just biased and don't care about facts and business/legal realities and only want to say negative things about me, what's the point? That email archive contains something that was on a blog I had a few years ago. But you didn't really read and understand. That past blog posting contained an email from the closest adviser on patent policy to the European Parliament's rapporteur (parliamentarian in charge of the particular legislative process) on software patents. That rapporteur's adviser authorized me to quote from an email he had sent to a mailing list of the FFII, thus it was seen by many people at the time but I still asked for permission before quoting on a blog. The rapporteur, Michel Rocard, was prime minister of France and fought very hard against software patents. His role in that process is even mentioned in his English-language Wikipedia entry. His adviser, whose email I was authorized to quote, played a key role in that effort. So that's a perfect source and not "facts [I] made up [myself]". Don't you think it would now be appropriate for you to admit that you didn't understand, and to retract the accusation of "slandering people with facts [I] made up [myself]"?
The Red Hat story was not made up by me; I quoted a first-rate parliamentary source Posted Aug 27, 2010 16:25 UTC (Fri) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
Lets just agree not the agree. I will keep believing I read and understand perfectly well what you are implying with that story that has you as only reference. And that is contrary to any other story about Red Hat's involvement in stopping software patents in Europe. And you will keep believing you are not slandering people but are calling out hypocrisy by writing about facts that nobody else is noticing in a way that you believe is a positive contribution to the discussion.
The Red Hat story was not made up by me; I quoted a first-rate parliamentary source Posted Aug 27, 2010 17:14 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Lets just agree not the agree. That would be no problem if we were talking about an opinion or prediction, but here we're talking about a well-documented fact, against which you hold unspecific denial. I will keep believing I read and understand perfectly well what you are implying with that story that has you as only reference. No. Let me provide the link again. I referred in that blog posting to an email on which an entire FFII (anti-software-patent activist) mailing list was copied. At the time, the thing was also discussed here on LWN, by the way, but at any rate, it was published on my blog at the time and no one ever denied the authenticity of the email. That blog posting said: But [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a key mailing list of European anti-software patent activists, and dozens of people received that email directly. No one will seriously question its authenticity. There can be no reasonable doubt about the authenticity of that email since plenty of FFII people who were on that list also followed that blog of mine. If you were subscribed to a mailing list and someone publishes something and claims it was sent to the list, you would also be able to verify whether that's true. And that is contrary to any other story about Red Hat's involvement in stopping software patents in Europe. Which "other story"? There was only one Red Hat employee at the time who was personally 100% committed to the cause: Alan Cox, former Linux kernel maintainer, no longer at Red Hat. If you look at the email, whose authenticity is beyond any reasonable doubt, you can see that Red Hat showed up there in the office of a Member of the European Parliament together with IBM (patent bully, patent aggressor, cynical beyond belief in its Bilski brief about impact of patents on FOSS), Google (pro-patent) and Sun, which used to be pro-patent and used patents as a key revenue source (about a billion dollars from Microsoft etc.). Just that combination makes it pretty clear where that Red Hat guy stood.
The Red Hat story was not made up by me; I quoted a first-rate parliamentary source Posted Aug 27, 2010 18:35 UTC (Fri) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
Just repeating the same message which has you as only source quoted by a known troll on the gnu-misc-discuss mailinglist is not a very strong argument.
You are the only person that is trying to smear through guilt by association through a redacted email claiming to be from someone important. And yes, your motives for posting these unverifiable claims have been discussed on LWN already when you first made them: http://lwn.net/Articles/189693/
The Red Hat story was not made up by me; I quoted a first-rate parliamentary source Posted Aug 27, 2010 18:47 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] You just don't want to be reasonable. But thanks for finding that old LWN discussion. You could see that someone appropriately noted that Mark Webbink didn't deny what I said. You also just talk about my "motives for posting these [...] claims". Facts are not a matter of motives. Mark Webbink published a Red Hat-Sun position paper. That one doesn't disprove anything. As the email I published showed, he lobbied (and he didn't deny on LWN) together with Sun, IBM (totally pro-patent) and Google (also pro-patent on the bottom line). Nobody in his right mind can believe that IBM would ever have lobbied against patents... so if Red Hat pursued a common cause with IBM, it's clear that there was something wrong and the position paper doesn't change that. you as only source quoted by a known troll on the gnu-misc-discuss mailinglist is not a very strong argument. You still purposely get things wrong. It doesn't matter whether the person who copied text from my former blog and posted it to a mailing list is a troll. I as the then-owner of that blog can confirm that his copy of my blog posting was correct. But his email and his copying my blog isn't what I call the source. I had published it at the time for everyone to see, and I said that it was sent to an FFII mailing list. I even said which list, but on that gnu mailing list the email address was "protected". Anyway, what plausible reason do you have to doubt the authenticity of that email if no member of that FFII mailing list ever denied it? And why aren't you satisfied with the uniquely identifying definition of the source of the email I published (again, not the fact that someone mailed my blog posting to a gnu list)? Patent policy adviser to then-Member of the European Parliament Michel Rocard is clear enough. Most of the activists in Europe know the name of that adviser. He was at the time an assistant professor at a French university. But he asked not to publish his name on the Internet in that context, and we respected that. By repeating all of this here, I give everyone who has doubts the chance to double-check on this. It's not hard to track down FFII activists and ask. It was the FFII's europarl mailing list. I'm sure many still have mails from that one on some storage media.
The Red Hat story was not made up by me; I quoted a first-rate parliamentary source Posted Aug 27, 2010 23:22 UTC (Fri) by Blaisorblade (guest, #25465) [Link]
I guess that you should probably take the discussion offline, unless you come to agreement and post that.
There are some weak points on both sides, even if I mostly believe Florian Mueller is more trustworthy.
I believe that the authenticity of the mail is very reasonable - other interpretations require an impressive amount of paranoia IMHO.
Of course, we do not have a definitive proof - we (including you) could ask some authoritative by-then-subscriber on the FFII list, and he could publish a public statement. I guess the onus is more on than on us (would they care)?
I first interpreted mjw's comments to my article as a misreading of the article - he really seemed some random guy not understanding you.
Then, we finally see that he's a RedHat developer, against you because you attack RH:
> Your blog comes over as a anti-IBM/Red Hat/Google, pro-Microsoft
mjw, given this article by Jonathan Corbet [1], how comes you visit LWN? Given also [2][3] and the distribution terms of RHEL and its security patches (I can't find the discussion of them here on LWN.NET, unfortunately), your employer is not that trustworthy to me (and to much of the community, for that matter). Yes, I acknowledge it supports many OSS projects, but it's rewarded well enough for its effort.
There's no reason to believe Mueller is pro-Microsoft. For instance, Miguel de Icaza has made greater praise to Microsoft .NET and its license, but nobody would question his transparency. He just believes Microsoft is not _that_ evil - and I personally fail to contend his technical points on this.
On the other side, Mr. Mueller, while I have no reason to believe you are employed by Microsoft, and that would be enough for me, your answer to the issue in [4] seems a bit confusing to me.
There can be many legitimate reasons for you being unable to state who is funding you, and maybe I don't understand that post because I lack the context you reference (without a link). Yet, a sentence like "I'm not related to Microsoft but I can't disclose my employer/I am a freelance/whatever", maybe together with briefly reiterating the standard non-patent-related stuff about Microsoft's trust, would reduce the chance of being misunderstood, and give less space to critiques of your positions.
However, I would like to see you comment against the weaknesses of the MS Community Promise [6][7] with the same strength as OIN weaknesses. While [7] sees MS as a bogeyman, there are valid points there (which you implicitly acknowledge here [8]).
Finally, the only comment about concrete OIN activity I've seen was about the purchase of the (supposed) OpenGL patents which Microsoft was selling. Of course, any OIN's protection on them still suffers from all OIN's flaws. Having said that, do you think that's at least something good? It would be good for you, I guess, to elaborate also on the good points of that, no matter how weak, to strengthen your position.
Thanks for your attention
[1] http://lwn.net/Articles/1251/
The Red Hat story was not made up by me; I quoted a first-rate parliamentary source Posted Aug 28, 2010 5:51 UTC (Sat) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Of course, we do not have a definitive proof - we (including you) could ask some authoritative by-then-subscriber on the FFII list, and he could publish a public statement Actually a statement by an FFII board member was published here on LWN at the time. That is someone with whom I never got along well, and his email talks about all sorts of issues that don't deny the fact Red Hat did that last-minute lobbying together with IBM, but as you can see, the authenticity of the email wasn't questioned by that board member -- and he was on that mailing list, too (all of the core activists were). That statement was made two days after I published the email in question, and as the statement clarified, because of the fact the FFII's name got mentioned (which was only because of that list email). However, I would like to see you comment against the weaknesses of the MS Community Promise [6][7] with the same strength as OIN weaknesses. While [7] sees MS as a bogeyman, there are valid points there (which you implicitly acknowledge here [8]). You complain more against OIN because it has a double face, which MS hasn't. Fine. Now MS might be doing something similar in its support to Mono, seemingly. Could you comment on that? There are reasons for that focus: 1. The Microsoft Community Promise is one of countless patent promises made by companies, while the OIN is the only entity of its kind in the open source context. 2. Concerning patent promises/pledges, Slashdot published an op-ed of mine five years ago. I link to that from my current blog and repeatedly refer people to it. I'm not aware of any aspect of the Microsoft Community Promise that wouldn't have been addressed by me already in that general piece. I'm also unaware of any shortcoming of the Microsoft Community Promise that other company promises with respect to patents don't have. 3. There's already significant awareness for the limitations of those pledges/promises, especially since the IBM vs. TurboHercules incident. However, there isn't a lot of knowledge out there about the OIN. For instance, even an open-source-specialized journalist and former LinuxFoundation employee like Brian Proffitt recently wrote an article in which he talked about only one of the OIN's three functions and consequently arrived at a completely wrong conclusion. Those company promises are much simpler in nature since they serve only one purpose. 4. Pledges/promises like the Microsoft Community Promise are unilateral acts, while the OIN is plurilateral. Two different entities relying on a company promise don't enter into a contractual relationship with each other that way; however, Oracle and Google, by becoming OIN licensees (not even members, just licensees) established a cross-license between the two of them, and that cross-license now proves unhelpful. Google is not suing anybody at all (just defending software patents). The questions of "not suing" and "defending" (if you mean defensive use) are actually separate. Whether or not a company sues is the wrong indicator. The vast majority of all patent issues are resolved without anyone having to go to court; and in many cases, it doesn't even take a contract because the fact that someone has a patent and the resources to enforce them and indicates that he will do so may often be enough of an intimidation. Google definitely stifles innovation with its search engine patents. No one has dared to infringe on the PageRank kind of patents because everyone who asked Google for a license was told "No way, José". So the reason they haven't had to sue is because people are so afraid. But the negative effects of those patents on innovation and competition is the same as if they sued successfully. Microsoft has sued over patent infringement only four times while having been sued countless times. Even in those four cases, the outcome was a license agreement, always pretty quickly after the lawsuit was filed. So those companies tested Microsoft's determination to actually go to court. If they had done the license deal right away, Microsoft would never have gone to court. But it would have used its patents nonetheless. If more licensees had decided on brinkmanship, there would have been even more lawsuits, and still just the same intentions on the patent holder's part. IBM vs. TurboHercules is another example. It was a threat letter. Any argument that they only answered a question is easily refuted because they alleged an infringement out of the blue, then clarified later, so there was threat v1.0 (unspecified IP infringement assertion) and threat v2.0 (along with a list of patents). They key thing here is not whether they ever have to go to court. It's that the TurboHercules company, the Hercules open source project and all users must be afraid of IBM doing so, which has all the anticompetitive effects IBM wants without a formal lawsuit. Of course, if someone wanted to test IBM's determination, that's where it could go. But for now it's an antitrust case before the European Commission. Even concerning Oracle vs. Google, it remains to be seen what Oracle wanted and wants, and whether Google had a chance to accept a reasonable deal and just decided to fight it out. Finally, the only comment about concrete OIN activity I've seen was about the purchase of the (supposed) OpenGL patents which Microsoft was selling. Of course, any OIN's protection on them still suffers from all OIN's flaws. Having said that, do you think that's at least something good? It would be good for you, I guess, to elaborate also on the good points of that, no matter how weak, to strengthen your position. Large companies like Microsoft divest patents all the time; so do many others; but there are many buyers (trolls, defensive pools, strategic buyers); so there's a huge secondary market for patents out there. The story that OIN tells (and GroklXX parroted more than once) without any credible evidence is that Microsoft specifically wanted trolls to assert those patents against Linux users and distributors without having to do so directly, and that Microsoft sold them to another entity, which then did a deal with OIN. No one has any evidence, but it is kind of hard to imagine that Microsoft, if it wanted to sell trolls via an in-between entity to trolls, wouldn't be able to do that. One can have different views as to their intentions, but the notion of them being as stupid as OIN claims is hard to imagine. I don't say it's impossible because I don't know what exactly happened; it's just not likely. In my first blog posting ever on OIN I actually answered, without limiting it to Microsoft (because OIN has bought hundreds of patents for huge amounts of money), the question you asked about whether it's a good thing. Let me quote the relevant passage from that posting: (quote from blog) The OIN continues to buy patents at auctions that might otherwise be acquired by regular trolls. At first sight, that may sound good. But given the intransparent and arbitrary structure of the OIN, it's not clear whether that's actually the lesser or the greater evil than a conventional troll. In the end, the OIN is under the control of those six companies who could decide to use some of those patents against competitors, including FOSS competitors. By controlling the definition of what the OIN calls the "Linux System", they can always ensure that their competitors don't benefit from it, even if they were or became OIN licensees. Buying those patents at auctions is really expensive. So far the OIN has spent hundreds of millions of dollars. Given the way businesses operate, that's not the amount of money that one would spend unselfishly. Instead, that level of investment, intransparency and unbalanced rights suggests ulterior motives, if not a long-term hidden agenda. (end quote from blog) So the honest answer is: I don't know whether it's good or bad because there's considerable doubt about the OIN. An organization that does such an unfair license agreement can't be trusted. If we all knew for sure that those OpenGL patents would otherwise have ended up in the hands of someone who would have caused major damage to the commercial adoption of Linux, then one could say that OIN would have been the lesser evil. But there are so many unknowns there about the OIN and about what would otherwise have happened with those patents...
Motivation Posted Aug 30, 2010 8:15 UTC (Mon) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
Yes, you are right. I will stop responding to him. We just won't agree.
I am not hiding the fact that Red Hat funds my work on some Free Software projects, nor the fact that as GNU Classpath maintainer and as one of the IcedTea maintainers I have some knowledge and interest in this issue. And I have even contributed articles on both the projects I work on in my free time and on company time to LWN. So none of this should really come as a surprise for those we read LWN (comments) regularly.
LWN's coverage of the issues and companies involved seem fact based. I do like reading them. But it is indeed a fact that although Red Hat as a company is based on and guided by Free Software principles, trying to lead, be good community participants and take a very strong anti software patent stance, they do operate in the current economic reality and have to pick causes that interest their customers and provides a stable income.
Pushing OIN to not just cover the GNU Java implementation, but also other ones seems like a good idea. For IcedTea/OpenJDK we have a shot since it could be seen as the successor release of the gcj/libgcj implementation since it has overlap with the community and maintainers of the GNU Java projects and most ION members now rely on it now as their default free java implementation in preference to the GNU Java one that was used for running other OIN components like Apache Ant, Derby, Tomcat and Eclipse. For Dalvik it seems a bit harder since OIN seems very focussed on the free software GNU/Linux server side. But IMHO we should certainly try to get the scope of OIN broader. It isn't surprising OIN doesn't help when software not covered by it is attacked, or when companies not part of OIN attack projects. It is certainly only a very small patent-peace. Ultimately the real solution will be abolishment of software patents.
As for the opinions of Florian Mueller I am not sure how trustworthy or helpful they are. His attacks seem somewhat random to me. His reasoning is driven by unknown motives to arrive at some point I must be missing. He is a good politician. See how in the above he was able to turn the discussion from whether there was any factual basis for his smearing to whether or not anybody could confirm some vague email actually exists. An email that doesn't actually support his allegations, all it does is say that someone saw some people talking, so the whole "proof" hangs on assumptions based on hearsay and guilt by association - anybody who ever talks to IBM is bad? I am a little sad that I just don't grok his motives. He can sometimes be right and he can be a good alley if your goals align, but beware if he has other interests http://lwn.net/Articles/148668/. I had hoped to better understand his motives, association, goals and who is funding his current activities. But I am afraid I just don't get it.
Motivation Posted Sep 6, 2010 13:47 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] http://lwn.net/Articles/148668/ There's a great comment on that article which includes this gem, pertinent to the topic of discussion at the time: IBM (1960s):
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 27, 2010 13:53 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] That seems written by someone advocating for Microsoft software patent trolling as long as they can be payed off under "fair and reasonable" terms. I absolutely reject the allegation that I'm "advocating" for that. All I did in my posting on Microsoft's use of patents is explain that there are two things a company can do if it wants to benefit from its patents, and what they do is the more cooperative approach than that taken by Apple in the HTC case or IBM in the TurboHercules case (or Google with respect to its search engine patents, to which it doesn't grant anyone a license). I made it very clear in that posting that I'm against software patents. No software patents, no royalties. But it's an important distinction to make whether patents are used as a revenue source or for exclusionary purposes. In fact, a lot of the uncertainty surrounding Oracle vs. Google is that Oracle hasn't said in public what it seeks to achieve. In Microsoft's case it's always been clear that they want royalties on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. Ideally, companies wouldn't do anything with those patents, but that's not realistic given that shareholders do expect them to derive value from their assets. If we want them to do nothing with those patents, we have to get rid of those patents. His only real point with regard to OIN seems to be that the system components list would need a refresh. Another misconception about my positions. I have commented on the OIN several times. Most recently, I explained that its inability to prevent Oracle from suing Google is a huge failure. The definition of the system components list doesn't just need a "refresh". They do refresh it from time to time. The problem is that it's put together in a totally intransparent process and there aren't any objective criteria. It's arbitrary. I had made four alternative suggestions for how to address that problem. I mentioned other issues related to OIN's intransparency on other occasions, such as the lack of clarity concerning what the rights and obligations of an "associate member" are (Canonical became the first one). In my first posting on OIN, I pointed out various issues, including intransparency and arbitrariness as well as the fact that there's no indication it has ever really strengthened the position of a company under attack. With companies like Amazon, HTC, Salesforce, TomTom etc. paying Microsoft royalties on patents which (at least some of which) read on Linux, it's pretty clear the OIN can't do what it's supposed to do, so the question is what it's actually about.
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 27, 2010 14:46 UTC (Fri) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
You are advocating for destructive usage of software patents and holding up Microsoft as a way to do it that benefits proprietary software (which can pay them off) and destroys free software projects. Your rhetoric make people question whether or not you are now being paid by Microsoft to lobby for them. Which you don't even deny.
Your rants against OIN and other initiatives that try to help free software against software patents are not constructive. No, they aren't perfect and no they aren't the full solution (abolition of software patents is). But the tone of your attacks is so strong that you come over as being against them. Especially compared to your praise of Microsofts handling of software patents, which actually is a real attack on Free Software.
Your blog comes over as a anti-IBM/Red Hat/Google, pro-Microsoft, attack on any person/initiative that tries to advance free software against patent aggression. Even if you claim that is just a misconception.
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 27, 2010 14:59 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] You are advocating for destructive usage of software patents We seem to have a definition problem here. In my opinion, destructive usage means that functionality is removed from a product or a company shut out of a market. I'm against destructive use by that definition. What's your definition? Apparently one that includes the simple commercialization. Then you don't want to face business realities. If the government gives companies those monopolies called patents, it's obvious they're going to do something with them. I wonder what your constructive and pragmatic suggestion is. What's wrong with pointing out the much lesser problem? Do you have anything better to propose that can work in light of business and legal realities? And again, I don't "advocate" that kind of use of patents; I point out what the lesser problem is. That's another definition problem you have. Apart from that, you keep making the same points I have dismantled, such as claiming I "advocate" that kind of thing, although I addressed that fallacy earlier today. Concerning the denial you want, I've said that if I ever have to announce anything, I will; since I haven't announced anything, people can draw their conclusions. That's the only answer I've always given in those contexts and I won't depart from it simply for no reason. None of my reasoning for any of the positions I have is a Microsoft kind of position. OIN and other initiatives that try to help free software against software patents This is still unspecific in terms of "other initiatives". Would you list them? I think there are reasons to have serious doubt that the OIN is really about "help[ing] free software against software patents" if you look at its inability to prevent Oracle from suing Gogle and the fact that major players like Amazon, HTC, Salesforce and TomTom pay Microsoft patent royalties. Since OIN doesn't do what it's supposed to do, and since the way it defines the scope of its license agreement (which would be one thing if it were just "their" license but it's also the scope of the cross-license between all licenses, including Oracle and Google) is utterly unfair and unreasonable, the question is appropriate what they're up to. In my opinion, OIN is probably mostly about giving its six owner companies strategic advantages over their FOSS competitors. So it discriminates within FOSS, contrary to helping FOSS. When looking at the patent-mongering track record of most of OIN's owners (including the biggest patent bully of all, IBM), it's really hard to imagine that they would help anyone, FOSS or whatever, against patents...
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 27, 2010 17:11 UTC (Fri) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
You are apparently under the believe that your writings can not be interpreted as legitimizing such destructive usage of software patents against Free Software. We just disagree that you are pointing out a "lesser problem". The end result is destruction of Free Software projects.
Your arguments against OIN seem based on transparency of the organisation and the intentions of the companies that fund it.
If transparency is so important, why won't you say who is currently funding your work?
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 27, 2010 17:23 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] We just disagree that you are pointing out a "lesser problem". The end result is destruction of Free Software projects. I challenged you to make a constructive suggestion for what else should be done, and you don't. Saying that patents should be used in truly destructive way because collecting royalties has the same "end result" is like telling the tax authority it should kill you because the end result is that your freedom from taxes goes away. Again, what are you able to propose under the circumstances? The problem is that free software can't be truly free as long as there are software patents. GNU/Linux isn't "free" in strict free software term if you ask Amazon, HTC, Salesforce and TomTom, and who knows how many others. Your arguments against OIN seem based on transparency of the organisation and the intentions of the companies that fund it. In the posting to which you replied, I explained this and you still don't seem to understand. Not after one explanation, not after two, so why try a third time? You either don't really read or you just want to attack baselessly. Either way is unacceptable if we want to discuss the issues. You're plain wrong that it's all just about transparency and intentions. The Linux System definition thing is a problem that goes way beyond transparency and intentions. It's an utterly unfair, asymmetrical contract. If transparency is so important, why won't you say who is currently funding your work? You just add to my impression of you not being constructive and reasonable since you come back once again to something I addressed before. I haven't seen any indication that you really want answers and solutions. You repeat over and over misrepresentations of what I say, you don't accept when something is answered, and in the Red Hat context you don't even accept evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt. On the patent royalties matter all you have to offer an ideology and that ideology is incompatible with certain business, legal and political realities of our times. Since you don't run this system, it means your positions are utopian, a word that originally means "there's no place for them" at least in this world.
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 27, 2010 18:45 UTC (Fri) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
We are discussing this in the context of a possibly not perfect, but certainly better solution than what you seem to advocate. The formation of Free Software friendly patent pools. You don't like them because they favour the companies that fund them more than those companies that don't. But that is how the economics work. Those who fund them create a free market around the software assets that matter to them. That seems a better and more pragmatic solution.
And no, you didn't address the very basic question about who is funding you currently.
To be totally transparent here is who is funding my day job currently: http://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2009/01/29/what-are-yo...
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 27, 2010 18:59 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Thanks for finally pointing out your affiliation with Red Hat. Nevertheless my answer was the right one. The formation of Free Software friendly patent pools. [...] Those who fund them create a free market around the software assets that matter to them. So far there isn't even one credible example of those pools having helped a company against which patents were asserted. The OIN's proponents suggest that the OIN helped TomTom. The press release on TomTom's settlement with Microsoft, however, made it clear that TomTom ended up paying royalties to Microsoft plus made a commitment to modify its code to work around certain patents. So it's pretty clear that TomTom lost. Everyone else whom Microsoft has taken to court has also ended up that way (an announcement according to which those companies pay), most recently Salesforce. So your proposed solution is a failure. Such a failure that companies like Amazon and HTC just paid right away instead of even trying to do anything together with the OIN, and that Oracle can sue Google although both are OIN licensees and in formal (but currently pretty useless) terms have a cross-license in place with each other via the OIN. I also don't see that your proposal works against Apple trying to force HTC to drop multitouch, or against IBM's anticompetitive intimidation of TurboHercules. Unfortunately, patent royalties are inevitable as long as there are patents, and are the fundamentally lesser problem than exclusionary use. If you want to make free software ideology the law, convince lawmakers that it's a good model. Lawmakers just have to look at how little acceptance the GPLv3 has to see that it's not what the industry at large wants as a business model. Red Hat does well, but it didn't create Linux. That's a business model that doesn't work for true innovators. You can't build an entire economy the Red Hat way because then everybody would just be waiting for someone else to innovate to jump on the bandwagon. In my view, software patents are not needed to enable software innovation. However, the industry largely wants them, and those in the industry who are against them don't make any serious effort to abolish them, which suggests that the problem isn't a pressing one. Consequently, lawmakers don't abolish software patents, and "infringers" (as much as I hate the term in connection with patents) should be glad if they get a good license deal rather than being shut out of a market or being forced to cripple a product the way Apple tries to impose it on HTC...
Free Software friendly patent pools Posted Aug 27, 2010 23:02 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] However, the industry largely wants them, and those in the industry who are against them don't make any serious effort to abolish them, which suggests that the problem isn't a pressing one. Are you suggesting that all those small and medium-sized companies who stepped up and stated their opposition to software patents aren't sufficiently representative of the industry? The economic majority?
The lack of funding for the anti-software-patent cause Posted Aug 28, 2010 6:10 UTC (Sat) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Are you suggesting that all those small and medium-sized companies who stepped up and stated their opposition to software patents aren't sufficiently representative of the industry? The economic majority? As much as I regret it because I'm against software patents and would prefer to see a lot of support for our cause, I have to answer your question with a clear Yes. The "Economic Majority" website you linked to is actually a striking example. Let me quote from its current content: So far, 1,948 companies, with a minimum of 31,503 employees and annual turnover of 3,258,244,082 EUR [...] So that's between EUR 3.2 billion and EUR 3.3 billion. Come on: IBM has revenues of close to $100 billion, so even if you just looked at IBM's European subsidiaries and then convert to EUR, it would dwarf that number; then Microsoft is around $60 billion, and so on. Even if limiting it only to European companies, SAP alone has revenues north of EUR 10 billion. But the website claims to represent an economic majority... This is just one example to demonstrate the lack of support for the cause. There's actually something even more important to look at: do companies put their money where their mouth is? If software patents were such a pressing problem for small and medium-sized companies, they would want to spend some money to address the problem politically and get rid of those patents. But there's never been any substantial funding. My NoSoftwarePatents campaign was more successful at fundraising than the entire FFII, which at the time had an annual budget in the EUR 100K range (just as a ballpark figure). That lack of resources is then visible because it means that they can't make a consistent effort with quality people. Politicians don't ask for a lobby entity's budget, but if they see that a cause is supported by people who for the largest part don't have any significant professional track record related to the issue, it reflects negatively on the cause. More importantly even than professional expertise, the thing is that in those patent policy discussions large companies write letters to politicians about how many jobs are at stake and depend on strong intellectual property rights. Politicians aren't programmers (except maybe 1 in 1,000), so they look at it from an economic policy point of view, and ultimately they'll trust -- in most cases -- those who represent substantial economic weight. I had a long debate with the FFII's founder and its current president on Facebook a few months ago about the state of the movement and particularly the question of economic weight and the related political clout. In that discussion, I also told them to be realistic about those numbers. They may be very proud of the support they got, but it doesn't impress politicians at all. I told them that they never even raised EUR 200,000 in one year to the best of my knowledge. Then they argued that small and medium-sized companies just aren't political. I said that if there's a pressing problem, they will get political. I gave them an example that in my opinion shows how ridiculously little support there is for the anti-software-patent cause: there used to be a lobby group for leading European soccer clubs, called G14 (initially 14, later 18 members). I cooperated with that one because I advised and represented their biggest member (Real Madrid) at the time. The G14 had an annual budget at the time of about 2 million euros. Each of its member clubs had revenues between EUR 50 million and EUR 350 million at the time; there are lots of medium-sized IT companies in that revenue range. Lots. So 18 clubs of that size decided to spend ten to twenty times as much on a Brussels (EU capital) lobbying entity as the entirety of European IT small and medium-sized businesses on the fight against software patents. This shows that the G14 addressed a pressing problem; the FFII and my former campaign apparently didn't.
The lack of funding for the anti-software-patent cause Posted Sep 6, 2010 15:24 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] This is just one example to demonstrate the lack of support for the cause. There's actually something even more important to look at: do companies put their money where their mouth is? I'm not sure that this is a "lack of support for the cause". That's a bunch of companies who stuck their necks out and said that they think software patents are a bad thing. Sure, it's very likely that a large number of companies either won't stick their necks out because it would make them look bad in front of their patrons at Microsoft and SAP - you don't want to "jeopardise" that business relationship, do you? - or because they "only sell solutions" (that is, products and customisations). If software patents were such a pressing problem for small and medium-sized companies, they would want to spend some money to address the problem politically and get rid of those patents. Maybe the bulk of the revenue sits in companies that aren't affected directly - those people who sell "solutions" - who in the case of patent litigation will just say that they had no idea about such matters and hope that the aggressor will let them off, perhaps even offering them a nice line of business involving the aggressor's products. In fact, looking at various lists of the biggest IT companies in, say, Norway (noting that numbers 2 and 3 in that list have now merged), there are a lot of companies at the top that are probably weighted towards a net consumption of technologies rather than a net production of technologies. It's important to look at local markets than the global picture because otherwise we'd all be doing the bidding of Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell and BP because "they create most value". More importantly even than professional expertise, the thing is that in those patent policy discussions large companies write letters to politicians about how many jobs are at stake and depend on strong intellectual property rights. Politicians aren't programmers (except maybe 1 in 1,000), so they look at it from an economic policy point of view, and ultimately they'll trust -- in most cases -- those who represent substantial economic weight. Yes, sickening isn't it? Some guy who heads up a company employing lots of people (politician hears "reducing the welfare burden" in his/her head) who help that company to make money (politician hears "producing taxable income") can effectively have a thousand-person vote just because of his/her job title, whereas a bunch of individuals (perhaps working for the very same company) writing letters are brushed off as the uninformed and unwashed masses. It's worth reminding those with political aspirations that it is as much their job to avoid being held to ransom by organisations who demand greater influence whilst issuing a veiled threat of "jobs being lost" as it is to encourage an environment where jobs can be maintained or created. Then they argued that small and medium-sized companies just aren't political. I said that if there's a pressing problem, they will get political. Well, I've already given some reasons why companies might not be political. You can also add the situation where a company that is not merely providing "solutions" would choose to sit out any political activity, for such reasons as avoiding confrontation with politically motivated opponents, sitting on the fence because of the attitudes of investors (those people who insist, contrary to the evidence, that patents make companies more valuable), or just having too much else to do building a small company offering their own products and services. I gave them an example that in my opinion shows how ridiculously little support there is for the anti-software-patent cause: there used to be a lobby group for leading European soccer clubs, called G14 (initially 14, later 18 members). That's apparently little financially motivated support. I cooperated with that one because I advised and represented their biggest member (Real Madrid) at the time. The G14 had an annual budget at the time of about 2 million euros. Each of its member clubs had revenues between EUR 50 million and EUR 350 million at the time; there are lots of medium-sized IT companies in that revenue range. Lots. So 18 clubs of that size decided to spend ten to twenty times as much on a Brussels (EU capital) lobbying entity as the entirety of European IT small and medium-sized businesses on the fight against software patents. This shows that the G14 addressed a pressing problem; the FFII and my former campaign apparently didn't. No, it merely shows that a group of organisations could be persuaded to spend money in order to further their own agenda, whereas many IT companies cannot be persuaded that doing the same thing would be in their best interests. That's not to say that the problem isn't acute for some parties and could spread to others; it means that everyone else just doesn't see it and doesn't care until it's their problem (at which point everybody else may well be indifferent to the problem). Saying that a lack of money floating around lobbying venues points to the absence of a problem is like saying that humanity doesn't have energy/water/food/resource problems because no-one is spending big money either highlighting or remedying those problems. If plenty of people are doing just fine making money from the current situation, why would they want to bring any attention to a future situation where they don't make that kind of money? Indeed, they'll gladly outspend anyone trying to do just that. I agree that terms like "economic majority" are risky because people just add up the revenue column and compare the numbers to the behemoths of global business, which should never be a form of policy guidance for anyone in public office. Really, the damaging effects of software patents are possibly more similar to the eradication of crucial species in ecosystems which seem unimportant ("I can't see what it does - no-one will miss it!") until the rest of the ecosystem collapses. Perhaps the "economic majority" is founded upon the freedom to innovate without the threat of patents, but we won't know the extent of the value created by having that freedom until someone manages to eradicate it. But it doesn't surprise me that people can't be persuaded to buy into such causes. If they did, we'd already have effective and functional governments and societies that dare to confront the big issues rather than burying them under a mountain of trivia and self-interest.
A very grumpy editor's thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 17, 2010 16:29 UTC (Tue) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link]
"Many electrons have been expended in the discussion"
I think they've been moved around quite extensively (which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the electrons that were unhappy), but they've not really been expended.
(Although you may argue from an electron/hole point of view that the electron and hole have annihilated in some transistors and diodes, it's really a matter of bookkeeping more than actual annihilation, since the hole is an absence of an electron.)
</physics_pedant> ;)
A very grumpy editor's thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 17, 2010 18:28 UTC (Tue) by leoc (subscriber, #39773) [Link]
The only function of the electrons is to keep the magic smoke from escaping!
A very grumpy editor's thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 18, 2010 10:10 UTC (Wed) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]
Nah, that's the job of a classical force field!
Free platform Posted Aug 17, 2010 16:34 UTC (Tue) by gmaxwell (subscriber, #30048) [Link] I'm left wondering what our editor here would consider to be the criteria for freeness in a platform. For Java we have a complete implementation available from the original author under GPL(v2) in addition to multiple independent free software implementations with various levels of completeness.Even according to the FSF "the Java language as such is no longer a trap", so I think we can forgive people for not being paranoid enough if it turns out that Java was still a trap. And I don't mean this as merely a rhetorical barb at the author— there are a number of platforms such as .NET/Mono which arguably have fewer assurances than Java and many others like Erlang which simply began life under a proprietary banner. I would have considered "reference implementation from the original author under the GPL" to be a gold standard. If that is inadequate what should we be demanding? Is GO a safe toolchain since it's more or less controlled by a single company? What about Javascript(™ Oracle)/ECMAScript? ECMA-262 itself makes _no_ mention of patents and, as far as I can tell, ECMA as a whole has no requirement that patented techniques submitted be available royalty free. So what should we have asked for and what should we be asking for? How do we convince the rest of the world that these things are important?
Free platform Posted Aug 17, 2010 16:51 UTC (Tue) by fandingo (subscriber, #67019) [Link]
The standard implementation of Java is free, and there's nothing that Oracle can do about that. The code is GPLv2, and there is a separate patent grant that grants impunity to users as long as they stick to the standard. Google made their own version of Java, and hence is not immune to patent suits.
Java is not a "trap" because of the GPLv2 and explicit patent grants for standard Java.
I forget where I was reading it (maybe here), but an author made a great point: Oracles open source projects are perfectly fine to use. There is nothing they can do because of the OS licenses and patent grants. However, developing for Oracle projects (or forking them for your own one) gives no such protection.
Free platform Posted Aug 17, 2010 18:13 UTC (Tue) by Aliasundercover (subscriber, #69009) [Link]
If you must adhere exactly to their standard, can not extend, modify or make a subset, then isn't much of the freedom in free software lost? Forks may often be a bad thing but if you can't fork it isn't really free.
I may be mistaken as this topic is so confusing but I am under the impression Sun's patent promise applies only to the exact unmodified feature set of a Java frozen in time.
Free platform Posted Aug 18, 2010 1:28 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
Forking won't destroy the patent protection. (I disagree with the last sentence of fandingo's comment.)
If Oracle publishes software under the GPL (v2 or v3), the recipients receive patent protection sufficient to allow the things described in the four freedoms, which includes forking.
So Google could have used OpenJDK as a starting point for Dalvik, and they wouldn't be having this patent problem. AFAICT.
Free platform Posted Aug 18, 2010 2:35 UTC (Wed) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
I don't understand where people are getting this "Releasing software under the GPLv2 gives an implicit patent grant, therefore it's safe to base software on OpenJDK" idea from. It can't be the GPLv2 license agreement itself, since Oracle (as author and copyright owner) isn't bound by that...
Free platform Posted Aug 18, 2010 6:10 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
> since Oracle (as author and copyright owner) isn't bound by that...
The GPLv2 does bound Oracle. Namely, it can not rescind the permissions it gave to others as part of a software license. This is basic legal theory, you can not tell others “you can do foo, if bar” then change your mind once others have expended resources reaching bar (at least, not in a legal document). Otherwise, no license would be worth the words used in it.
The only thing Oracle can do is define new conditions for new software releases, or relax conditions on old software releases. They are not allowed to add restrictions on old software releases people already licensed under specific terms (and the GPL is worded in such a way the license can be transmitted from user to user and from version to derivatives).
Oracle *is* bound by the GPL Posted Aug 18, 2010 23:55 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
I don't know the legal answer to that, but let's assume you're right and Oracle doesn't need to comply with the GPL in order to distribute. That would mean they can give you a copy of the OpenJDK source code without giving you a copy of the GPL. However, that's not what they did. What they did is, they distributed OpenJDK *with* a legal document saying.
They gave people a copy of the OpenJDK source code with a legal document which has a load of paragraphs that start with "You may...".
If you're right, then you've only proved that they didn't have to give you that legal document. That doesn't change the fact that they *did* give you that legal document, and so, Oracle is bound by that legal document.
Yes/no?
field of use restrictions Posted Aug 18, 2010 21:17 UTC (Wed) by SilverWave (guest, #55000) [Link]
I would be interested in your opinion on this comment by jilocasin:
"It's Oracle upset that Google has routed around their lucrative Java Mobile licensing by out developing them. If you were unaware, Sun's official Java test suite comes with field of use restrictions that keep it limited to the desktop space. If you certified your open source Java JVM to comply, you can't use it on servers or mobile devices (or anything else for that matter like TV set top boxes). For anything else you have to pay Oracle a license fee. It's these field of use restrictions (among other reasons) that has kept the Harmony project from certifying their project as "Official Java"."
OpenTCK Posted Aug 18, 2010 22:00 UTC (Wed) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
Although the TCK is proprietary and you only get access to it under NDA, it doesn't come with such restrictions. See e.g the OpenJDK JCK http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-tck-license.pdf
Note that Google actually has access to this: http://openjdk.java.net/groups/conformance/JckAccess/jck-...
That said, it is still a big problem if you care about freedom, java and the JCK and it is a long and somewhat sad story: http://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2007/04/21/openjck/
Google created their own VM (Dalvik) they don't use the JVM! Posted Aug 17, 2010 18:23 UTC (Tue) by SilverWave (guest, #55000) [Link]
Classpath Exception not included in the mobile edition Posted Aug 17, 2010 18:13 UTC (Tue) by SilverWave (guest, #55000) [Link]
See Update 4 here:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100813112425821
"Update 4: A reader comment should be noted:
You seem to be missing the point of why Google didn't just use the GPL'd JavaME. Sun deliberately removed the Classpath exception on JavaME specifically because they saw that most of their licensing opportunities were on mobile platforms. This meant that any *application* developers targeting a GPL'd JavaME platform would be forced to GPL their applications. Not surprisingly Google saw this would be undesirable when trying to attract developers to the platform."
This is interesting:
http://sites.google.com/site/io/dalvik-vm-internals
Good Overview here:
Classpath Exception not included in the mobile edition Posted Aug 17, 2010 20:04 UTC (Tue) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
Except that Dalvik is not JavaME. If it's close to something, that's JavaSE. Even Oracle wrote it before buying SUN
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/berkeleydb/bdb...
(This, BTW, is one reason Android has rolled over JavaME phones: SUN let the JavaME cash cow rot at Java 1.3 level, while phone hardware improved, making the improvements of later Java versions interesting for mobile, and digging the competitive advantage trench Google would use later)
The *only* reason Android used Harmony as a base for Dalvik is the fundamental distrust of the Android team for anything GPL-ish. Remember that the core Android team came from Danger, which was quite happy to let itself acquire by Microsoft.
The fact that Android runs a Linux kernel despite this deep GPL distrust is quite a testament for the technical quality of the modern Linux kernel. Android certainly didn't swallow this GPL code pile with pleasure.
Classpath Exception not included in the mobile edition Posted Aug 18, 2010 8:07 UTC (Wed) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
I had the idea that the main reason behind chosing Harmony was that Google wanted to allow propietary development on Android, and that was not possible using OpenJDK class library, as it is GPL's (not LGPL'd).
Also, a pair of notes: Isn't JavaME in version 6, just like JavaSE?
Classpath Exception not included in the mobile edition Posted Aug 18, 2010 10:46 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] That's not true, OpenJDK is under a GPLv2 + "ClassPath Exception" licence. Here's the text of that exception:
"CLASSPATH" EXCEPTION TO THE GPL That exception makes it explicit that the ClassPath libraries so marked can be linked with other applications without affecting the licensing of the application. The JavaME edition has some additional libraries, specific to mobiles obviously, which do NOT offer this exception - they're GPL only. Hence why many users of JavaME chose to get a proprietary licence from Sun. Google do not use those APIs anyway, AFAIK. I.e. it does seem that there were no licensing obstacles to Google using the OpenJDK, at least in terms of wanting to avoid applications having to be GPLed (Google might have started its Dalvik work while Sun were still in the process of GPLing the JDK - anyone remember the exact timeline?). Given that Google generally went out of its way to avoid having any GPL code in Android, it seems that their motivation was simply to avoid being restricted in any way by copyleft. I wonder if that choice was made on a rational basis, or out of less rational, base GPL hatred/fear.
Classpath Exception not included in the mobile edition Posted Aug 20, 2010 10:08 UTC (Fri) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
But again, JavaME is NOT covered by that exception. Thus the only way for Google to stay in the clear would have been to use the _full_ JavaSE, not a subset.
With the emphasis put on leanness as shown in Dalvik design, I can guess this was just ruled out?
Classpath Exception not included in the mobile edition Posted Aug 20, 2010 10:39 UTC (Fri) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
Again, your argument is defeated by the fact that what Google finally produced is a lot closer to JavaSE than JavaME (Harmony is a JavaSE not ME clone)
JavaME was written for the kind of phones the iPhone and Android stormed over: clunky, limited hardware where the software was an afterthought because the phone industry worried more about ringtones and MMS than about the user experience
It takes more than a ME moniker to define what's needed on a smartphone.
Classpath Exception not included in the mobile edition Posted Aug 26, 2010 12:42 UTC (Thu) by willjcroz (guest, #62784) [Link]
AFAICT the use of JavaSE/Harmony libraries is complicated by the field of use restrictions issued by Sun for the OpenJDK JCK compliance test framework (required to 'comply' and get patent license). It's use on anything other than a standard computer on a desk is prohibited from what I have read.
See the open letter to Sun from Apache Harmony team:
http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletter.html
and its related FAQ:
http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletterfaq.html
From what I can find, Apache Harmony project's concerns have not been addressed. Unless you know otherwise, in which case please post details of how Sun addressed this.
Classpath Exception not included in the mobile edition Posted Aug 27, 2010 11:41 UTC (Fri) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
> AFAICT the use of JavaSE/Harmony libraries is complicated by the field of use restrictions issued by Sun for the OpenJDK JCK compliance test framework (required to 'comply' and get patent license). It's use on anything other than a standard computer on a desk is prohibited from what I have read.
There are no such field of use restrictions in the OpenJDK JCK:
> From what I can find, Apache Harmony project's concerns have not been addressed.
The problem with their concerns is that they are unverifiable because they did the "negotiations" in secrecy without involving the bigger libre java community. They probably really got a bad deal, but it is hard to help out if they keep the details hidden: http://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2007/04/21/openjck/
Classpath Exception not included in the mobile edition Posted Aug 20, 2010 11:32 UTC (Fri) by mjw (subscriber, #16740) [Link]
> But again, JavaME is NOT covered by that exception. Thus the only way for Google to stay in the clear would have been to use the _full_ JavaSE, not a subset.
You seem to be confusing the "specification" with the "implementation" and what Android/Dalvik actually supports.
The full GPL implementation that Oracle/Sun distributes is called PhoneME: https://phoneme.dev.java.net/ https://phoneme.dev.java.net/source/browse/phoneme/legal/
The OpenJDK implementation under GPL (+ exception) that they distribute is an implementation of JavaSE.
Some of the specified libraries overlap (although there are some subtle differences in behaviour) but neither is a full subset or superset of the other.
An example of usage of both PhoneME, OpenJDK and GNU Classpath, JamVM or Cacao derived implementations on embedded devices is the Bug: http://community.buglabs.net/kgilmer/posts/45-BUG-OpenJDK
Another example that blurs the lines between SE and ME (and happily combines code from various free implementations, PhoneME, OpenJDK, GNU Classpath, Cacao, etc.) is MIDPath http://midpath.thenesis.org/bin/view/Main/
Android/Dalvik resembles the Java SE variant the most. It doesn't reall resemble any java variant directly. But it doesn't include anything in ME that is not in SE. It can be seen as a subset of the SE libraries, with specific Android libraries added. The implementation is designed to run well on small devices, but isn't JavaME like.
Classpath Exception not included in the mobile edition Posted Aug 22, 2010 5:00 UTC (Sun) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
It doesn't matter. Google are NOT using JavaME - they're using a subset of SE. So the OpenJDK GPL+CE implementation is there for their taking and should be acceptable - modulo the fact that Google don't seem to like the GPL much.
Classpath Exception not included in the mobile edition Posted Aug 18, 2010 11:42 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
> Java ME started out as an effort to bring Java back to its original
> roots: as a language and environment for writing embedded applications. > The baseline ME profiles are pretty bare; I did some CLDC development > years ago and had to implement my own buffered streams and various data > structures just to get by. Even the biggest profiles are still fairly > restricted, and I don't believe any of them have ever graduated beyond > Java 1.3-level featuresets. So Sun did a great job of getting Java ME on > devices, back when people cared about Sun...and then they let mobile Java > stagnate to a terrible degree while they spent all resources trying to > get people to use Java EE and trying to get Java EE to suck less.
http://blog.headius.com/2010/08/my-thoughts-on-oracle-v-g...
> Android breaks new ground in the device category because it is a Java 2
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/berkeleydb/bdb...
> As of 2008, all Java ME platforms are currently restricted to JRE 1.3
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Java_Platf...
Other thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 17, 2010 17:02 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]
Funny you mention Android switching to Ruby (which even as a Ruby fan I think is rather unlikely). The best (and longest) article I've seen yet about this, giving lots of context, comes from JRuby co-implementor (and former Sun employee) Charles Nutter.
http://blog.headius.com/2010/08/my-thoughts-on-oracle-v-g...
It's also notable that he's a *former* Sun employee. It looks to me (watching from a very long distance) that Oracle has been driving away a lot of Sun engineers one way or another. It could be that Sun's primary long-term value to Oracle is as a source of patents for trolling.
Other thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 17, 2010 17:06 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]
I also meant to add that Nutter has ported JRuby to Android (as Ruboto, check the Market). So he's pretty familiar with both Java and Android.
Other thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 17, 2010 18:03 UTC (Tue) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
It's a bit disingenuous to say Oracle bought Sun for Patents to Troll with. They have been pretty clear they bought Sun to give them a leg up in competition with IBM by eliminating IBM's hardware advantage. Everything else was secondary to the acquisition. Unless of course you want to argue that they are lieing about buying Sun for the Hardware division, but I see little reason for them to lie about it.
Google wouldn't be in this situation had they not tried to create essentially a closed platform they could control using free software. Personally I'd love to see them reverse themselves and switch to Python or Ruby or any of the truely FOSS languages. You have to wonder if Oracle considered whether it would be better to squeeze money from Google or risk that Google and much of the FOSS community abandons Java completely. That's what they have ultimately risked here, whether Google will throw Java under the bus, if they do so I predict Java growth will level off or halt completely at least in the FOSS community. Whether that risk is worth the benefit is yet to be seen.
Other thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 17, 2010 18:28 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]
I thought Oracle was pretty clear that they bought Sun for Java.
But I didn't say patent trolling was the reason Oracle bought Sun. I said that could be the long-term value of the purchase.
And I certainly don't see how Android is "essentially a closed platform". It's closed to the extent that it needs to be in order for it to be acceptable to the carriers, but is much more open than the iPhone or any other widespread (at least in the US) smartphone OS. They keep some apps and drivers to themselves, and they aren't incredibly accepting of outside contributions, but the code is out there for people to modify and add to.
I doubt that Oracle cares whether the FOSS community abandons Java, since the FOSS community (unlike the enterprise world) never really embraced Java very much. Google itself is pretty tied to Java though.
If Google were to migrate Android to anything else, I'd bet that it would be either Javascript or Python, in that order. But I don't expect it to come to that.
Other thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 17, 2010 20:36 UTC (Tue) by jonabbey (subscriber, #2736) [Link]
"I doubt that Oracle cares whether the FOSS community abandons Java, since the FOSS community (unlike the enterprise world) never really embraced Java very much. Google itself is pretty tied to Java though."
Eh? You mean aside from most Apache Foundation projects (Abdera, ActiveMQ, Ant, Archiva, and Avro, just to list the ones that start with 'A'), JBoss, JRuby, Jython, Clojure, SWT, Eclipse, Spring, Scala, iText, ANTLR, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.?
Other thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 18, 2010 2:10 UTC (Wed) by butlerm (subscriber, #13312) [Link]
How many of those are installed on an average Linux box? Approximately none of them - no disrespect intended.
Other thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 18, 2010 4:27 UTC (Wed) by jonabbey (subscriber, #2736) [Link]
That would depend on what you think the average Linux box is doing. If you think the average Linux box is acting as a desktop system, perhaps not.
Other thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 18, 2010 10:07 UTC (Wed) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] I think the mode for Linux boxes is "embedded/device"; probably the median as well. The mean probably can't be usefully defined in this context.
Other thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 18, 2010 6:23 UTC (Wed) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
It is not dangerous at at all for Oracle to anger the Apache community. One of its fundamental values is that business is a necessary evil, and we need to be nice with it (hence the permissiveness of Apache license: it does not require that stuff is kept open source, it hopes businesses will be so nice as to contribute to the open source version and not fork it in closed products).
SUN has been at odds with Apache for years (over Harmony and the TCK, over the dumping of Tomcat as reference J2EE implementation for Glassfish, etc) and apart from some sabre rattling from the Apache foundation every once in a while what did it ever cost them?
What *is* dangerous is to anger the copyleft crowd, because it does not care about corporations liking it or not, stuff which is copyleft must stay copyleft there are no choices in the matter.
Other thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 17, 2010 22:45 UTC (Tue) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953) [Link]
I may not have kept up on the news very well, but I do remember very well a news article after the acquisition was approved stating that the primary asset at Sun they wanted was Sparc so they could compete more effectively against IBM's full stack of software and hardware. Oracle's missing piece in enterprise sales was the ability to offer an integrated software and hardware stack. With Sun they not only gain Sparc and a Linux supported architecture, but they also gain Solaris which is competitive with AIX as a proprietary OS. It was stated in the article that they pursued the acquisition because IBM was able to steal some high profile enterprise clients from them using the fully integrated software and hardware offerings.
Could you point me to this statement that they went for Sun because of Java? As I stated I was always under the impression that Java and Mysql were just small bits compared to the hardware assets in the desire for the acquisition.
Other thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 18, 2010 19:09 UTC (Wed) by davecb (subscriber, #1574) [Link] There was widespread speculation that Oracle was buying Sun for Java, IMHO primarily from people who don't have more than 4 CPUs in anything they use. --dave (I only own < 4 socket systems, but use 32 to 64-socket systems in my work as a capacity planner) c-b
Other thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 27, 2010 23:22 UTC (Fri) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784) [Link] I may not have kept up on the news very well, but I do remember very well a news article after the acquisition was approved stating that the primary asset at Sun they wanted was Sparc so they could compete more effectively against IBM's full stack of software and hardware. I don't doubt that Oracle wouldn't mind as tall a stack as they can deliver, but how desirable Sun's hardware was in such a stack for the likes of Oracle to actually pay for and own is open to question. Certainly, various reports in places like The Register claimed that no-one wanted to buy the hardware divisions of Sun in an acquisition, that Oracle already had a partnership with HP, and that Fujitsu was tipped to pick up the remainder of Sun after the software divisions had been retained by the highest bidder. But really, all us outsiders have is the analysis, not the actual inside information about any particular company's strategy.
Other thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 18, 2010 1:31 UTC (Wed) by russell (subscriber, #10458) [Link]
I'd drool over a python based android. But that's probably very expensive to change now. Wouldn't it?
Other thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 18, 2010 2:22 UTC (Wed) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
> truely FOSS languages
Errr...Java *is* truly FOSS, it's got a GPLed implementation and everything!
Other thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 18, 2010 10:26 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
And, even more pertinently, a GPLed implementation by one of the main holders of patents over it.
One of the lessons of this story surely has to be the importance of building shared pools of Free Software licensed code, with the maximal possible corporate 'exposure' in terms of contributions (and thus patent grants) - thus innoculating all its users from lawsuits regarding that code, between themselves.
Other thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 19, 2010 16:26 UTC (Thu) by cde (guest, #46554) [Link]
Does ruby have a JIT compiler like Dalvik? If not, it's a no-go from a performance point of view. A more likely alternative then would be Lua (LuaJIT doesn't support ARM, but there's no reason it couldn't).
Other thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 25, 2010 9:07 UTC (Wed) by Blaisorblade (guest, #25465) [Link]
Dalvik was born without a JIT, and Ruby is getting some performance work.
If you mean for a fast switch, these scripting languages (except Lua) have abysmal performance - I refer specifically to Python and Ruby - and I'm perfectly aware of PyPy, Unladen Swallow, JRuby.
However, Google has enough engineers to reimplement a VM for another language again, like done for Dalvik.
And people (up to Miguel de Icaza) suggested that .NET was safer: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html
Oracle's reasons for buying Sun Posted Aug 25, 2010 14:55 UTC (Wed) by Blaisorblade (guest, #25465) [Link]
> It looks to me (watching from a very long distance) that Oracle has been driving away a lot of Sun engineers one way or another. It could be that Sun's primary long-term value to Oracle is as a source of patents for trolling.
Notwithstanding with what most answers say, you're at least partially right.
[1] http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.html - it quotes the following Gosling's blog posts.
A very grumpy editor's thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 17, 2010 17:13 UTC (Tue) by rilder (subscriber, #59804) [Link]
"Corporations, by their nature, are not trustworthy beasts; even the most well-intentioned company is only one bad quarter (or one takeover) away from becoming an aggressive troll."
Well said. Any company can take an ugly turn based on the mercuriality of the market.
Google should have seen this coming I guess when Oracle bought Sun. On the other hand, Google could have bought Sun when they were going to base one of their main ventures over Java.
I would like to see how forks of MySQL(Mariadb, Drizzle etc), OpenSolaris flavors would see this. Virtualbox would also be closely watched, especially when KVM is growing pretty fast.
A very grumpy editor's thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 17, 2010 18:11 UTC (Tue) by pj (subscriber, #4506) [Link]
> This is not an attack on free software in general, despite the fact that Google would like to see the community view it that way. It is an attack on a specific platform (much of which is free software) .... Even if Oracle gets everything it wants, the damage to the wider free software community will be limited. We were strong before the advent of Android, and would remain strong if it were to be removed from the scene.
It's at least an attack on the free software that's part of the Android platform, including the Apache Harmony project.
And don't forget to mention that Groklaw will be covering this one, for whatever that's worth.
GNU Java compiler Posted Aug 17, 2010 18:45 UTC (Tue) by southey (subscriber, #9466) [Link] It is also has implications for the GNU Java compiler because the suit also appears to be also control of the Java language. Especially about writing an interpreter for the actual language and how create an executable program. It will make it hard to do that if Oracle America wins.
GNU Java compiler Posted Aug 17, 2010 23:47 UTC (Tue) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
Amusingly, Oracle's patents don't cover a non-JIT compiler. Google could step around most of their troubles by including a Dalvik byte-code to machine-code compiler (based, perhaps, on Gcj) that runs when the bytecode objects are installed, rather then when they are executed. Android phones might need some more memory, then, but memory is still getting cheaper fast. It would be the more amusing if this resulted in better performance all around.
If Google were to abandon the JVM/Dalvik model and switch to a more optimizable intermediate representation, such as LLVM's, performance would be better still. That would, in turn, open up Android development to a much wider range of languages, and could make porting iPhone programs to Android much easier.
Dalvik and JIT Posted Aug 18, 2010 9:34 UTC (Wed) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link] That's interesting, because last time I looked (see the presentation slides), Dalvik didn't have a JIT compiler.
Dalvik and JIT Posted Aug 18, 2010 11:07 UTC (Wed) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link] Acording to Wikipedia, as of Android 2.2 it does.
Dalvik and JIT Posted Aug 18, 2010 14:28 UTC (Wed) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]
Ah. Thanks. That's one patent which might be somewhat relevant, then, though I suspect there's a lot of prior art there. Forth systems, for instance, do something like this since the 1970s.
GNU Java compiler Posted Aug 25, 2010 14:53 UTC (Wed) by Blaisorblade (guest, #25465) [Link]
> [About non-JIT performance] It would be the more amusing if this resulted in better performance all around.
Don't take it as an offense, but that's nonsense, and let a student of Virtual Machine implementation explain why.
The reason to use JIT compilation is that Java programs can't run fast without profile-guided optimizations - a JIT can inline virtual function calls easily (after checking the exact class of the target object with a guard, but that's a perfectly predictable branch). That's something C++ can't do.
Also, last time I tried Eclipse compiled with GCJ, it was IIRC 5 times slower in startup than the standard guy - enough to make me uninstall it. That doesn't mean anything per se, but I still wanted to point that out.
About LLVM, it has a great potential. But LLVM's JIT compiler was not _that_ good when Google's engineers working on Unladen Swallow tried using it.
GNU Java compiler Posted Aug 26, 2010 7:28 UTC (Thu) by linuxrocks123 (guest, #34648) [Link]
There is no fundamental reason C++ could not do this. The optimization you are describing is partial evaluation and is well-known. Profiling data would be helpful to know when to perform the partial evaluation transformation, but static compilers can use profiling data generated from an instrumented executable.
---linuxrocks123
GNU Java compiler Posted Aug 27, 2010 16:51 UTC (Fri) by Blaisorblade (guest, #25465) [Link] That's not partial evaluation - my explanation was confusing. And partial evaluation (p.e.) is still unusable in practice in most cases (PyPy is the only known real-world exception I believe, and it's not really p.e.).Sorry, I was very unclear - when I wrote "checking the exact class of the target object with a guard", I meant that the inlined code is executed only after checking, at runtime, the class of the receiver. So a.method(args);becomes
if (a.getClass() == expectedClass)
call expectedClass_method(a, args);
else
//normal call dispatch
and you need profiling data to choose expectedClass. There are few cases in which they are not needed, mostly on final methods or on classes which currently have no subclasses (loading new classes might invalidate this assumption and cause the generated code to be thrown away).
This is a case of run-time algorithm specialisation, and IMHO it's related but different from p.e. I was a bit sloppy, but the "impossibility" of C++ is actually more an effect of the lack of a virtual machine during C++ execution, in most cases (yes, I know Managed C++, that's the exception). Profile-guided optimization could be applied to programs in non-VM-based languages - but I don't know of, say, mainstream Linux distributions doing this, even on specific cases. This is not only due to convenience issues: a good reason is that the profile can be workload-dependent, and you don't necessarily have a gain when you use the wrong profile - I've read examples of this in some paper that I don't remember, but I hope the plausibility is clear enough. Indeed, in VMs it's interesting the ability to adapt to changes in program behavior. From my knowledge about p.e., derived from discussions with fellow PhD students and accounts on Wikipedia and PyPy docs (they used p.e., and stopped doing it), general p.e. techniques are well known as being difficult to use, because performance of programs using them is difficult to predict; that's cited as a reason for the invention of MetaML, an environment for staged compilation, where p.e. is explicitly controlled, and for the abandonment of the previous PyPy's JIT compiler [1]. Currently they have reimplemented a form of runtime specialization through tracing JIT compilation, which seems rather different from traditional techniques - in particular, it can't optimize an unmodified RPython program. See here for a discussion about unpredictable optimizations in general. The optimization I describe is well-known, except by, say, CPython implementors (and by Ruby implementors up to Ruby 1.8), together with a set of well-known results from the past 30 years (like "don't use reference counting" and other stuff - see these papers). [1] "performance instability: change a seemingly unrelated bit in your source program, and the performance changes in unexpected ways, which is clearly not desirable". It's not clear whether it's related to p.e., until after reading the paper about MetaML.
GNU Java compiler Posted Sep 21, 2010 0:02 UTC (Tue) by linuxrocks123 (guest, #34648) [Link]
I was using partial evaluation a little more broadly than you, and I understood you the first time :)
You're right that profiling isn't widely used on Linux yet, mostly, I believe, due to inertia. However, the Firefox build for Windows is compiled with the benefit of profiling data. It's not compiled with profiling on Linux only because Mozilla doesn't think it's worth the engineering effort to make it work with GCC. If you had profiling data, you could do algorithm specialization (which is really just a special case of partial evaluation IMHO) very easily.
Also, bear in mind that this is just one, small performance optimization. C++ beats Java with respect to many others.
---linuxrocks123
GNU Java compiler Posted Aug 18, 2010 1:53 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
That's kinda mitigated by Oracle being a member of OIN and libgcj and GCC being on OIN's list of protected software packages. ...but the extent of OIN's protection is sometimes unclear.
I'm trying to untangle it here:
A very grumpy editor's thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 17, 2010 20:42 UTC (Tue) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] Yet again our Editor, despite being so Grumpy, has at least been able to collect his thoughts to use what little information is out there to write a coherent article without indulging in much speculation. But this one piece I too didn't get the logic of:This is not an attack on free software in general, despite the fact that Google would like to see the community view it that way. It is an attack on a specific platform (much of which is free software) by a rapacious company which has just bought an expensive asset and wants to squeeze some revenue from it. It seems quite likely that this suit would have happened in the same way if Dalvik were proprietary. It is not about Oracle or Google being good or bad, but how is this not an attack on free software??? Oracle is suing Google for Dalvik, which is 100% FOSS. They are not suing for any of the proprietary parts. Especially the last sentence I don't get. For instance when Microsoft sued TomTom for using Linux (the vfat patents), would you have written that "...it seems quite likely Microsoft would have sued TomTom in the same way if Linux were proprietary?" Quite obviously they would have, but I don't see the relevance. Of course it was an attack on free software?
A very grumpy editor's thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 17, 2010 21:55 UTC (Tue) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link]
I agree. Actually even if hypothetically Dalvik was proprietary software, this would still be an attack against Free Software - prohibiting new implementations goes against the very core of what Free Software stands for.
We now know for sure that all independent Java implementations (and there are quite a few of them, including GCJ) are at least as vulnerable as Dalvik. If Oracle wanted, they have the means to shut them down. They won't bother simply because none of the alternative implementations has become important. That is not very reassuring.
So how is this not an attack on free software? I would say it is the single biggest attacks since SCO. In a sense it is even bigger because while SCO was on shaky ground from the beginning, Oracle is _extremely_ likely to win this case in court.
A very grumpy editor's thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 18, 2010 0:36 UTC (Wed) by eou (guest, #69609) [Link]
Why would they be "extremely" likely to win?
It seems to me those patents are all trivial, and thus Google should have at least a decent chance of winning if they keep fighting indefinitely (hopefully, almost certainty, but IANAL).
Of course, if Google settles without buying the patents (or equivalently, an unlimited license for everyone), it would be a disaster.
The consequences of avoiding GPL Posted Aug 17, 2010 18:33 UTC (Tue) by jejb (subscriber, #6654) [Link]
One of the things missing from this excellent analysis is how it is related to Google's choices in producing the Android platform. A specific choice they made was avoidance of the GPL wherever possible and containment of the components (like the kernel, bluez and dbus) where that wasn't possible. With the origin in Project Harmony (the Apache one) and the deliberate writing of additions to harmony under ASL, coupled with the avoidance of the GPL licensed JVM reference, Google deliberately created a thing which was explicitly not derived from the Sun/Oracle JVM reference platform.
Now, however, that choice is revealed as counter productive in this instance: if dalvik had been based on the JVM reference platform (and thus become licensed under GPL itself), it would have been a derived work of the Sun/Oracle reference platform and would be subject to the GPL implicit patent grant. Oracle could not have sued Google without causing the termination of distribution rights for the entire JVM derived system (for everyone) and thus making a direct attack on a key pillar of the open source ecosystem. I think even Larry Ellison would hesitate before going down that path ...
The consequences of avoiding GPL Posted Aug 17, 2010 20:40 UTC (Tue) by jonabbey (subscriber, #2736) [Link]
Sun doesn't permit the patent license to go to people who build out distributions of JavaSE without including all classes specified under java.* and javax.*.
This means Android would have had to have shipped Swing and AWT, for instance, along with CORBA, Java RMI, and so on.
That's not viable for a mobile phone, even today. That's why Sun could charge for JavaME.. they had stuffed mobile killers into the java.* and javax.* package hierarchies.
The consequences of avoiding GPL Posted Aug 17, 2010 20:57 UTC (Tue) by jejb (subscriber, #6654) [Link]
> Sun doesn't permit the patent license to go to people who build out
> distributions of JavaSE without including all classes specified under > java.* and javax.*.
Sun was on very dicey legal ground here: GPL doesn't permit the enforcement of additional restrictions via patents (this is what the implicit patent grant is all about). Section 7 (of GPLv2) is very clear what happens when you take enforcement actions on this: the licence terminates and the software becomes undistributable ... for everyone. Sun, since it sat outside of the GPL ecosystem,might have been able to weather this consequence but Oracle is a major participant in that ecosystem.
If it came to a court battle on this point over some GPL derivative of Java, I'm pretty sure the entire GPL ecosystem would be lining up behind whoever had been threatened with a patent suit. My point is that this is currently not happening for Google because they chose not to be part of that ecosystem.
Sorry, but you are wrong... Posted Aug 17, 2010 22:58 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Section 7 (of GPLv2) is very clear what happens when you take enforcement actions on this: the licence terminates and the software becomes undistributable ... for everyone. s/for everyone/for everyone except Oracle/... Big difference! Remember copyright assignments? That's why they are there. Sun itself does not need to obey GPL. You'll need to visit courtroom to find out if you actually got the patent license or not and while it's very hard to imagine that court will declare that unmodified version need yet another separate patent license it's not so easy to say what the resolution will be WRT modified version. There are enough loopholes in GPLv2 to make such interpretation plausible and if you are sole owner then you interpretation almost by definition is more plausible then someone who read license once and decided not to ask about clarifications... If it came to a court battle on this point over some GPL derivative of Java, I'm pretty sure the entire GPL ecosystem would be lining up behind whoever had been threatened with a patent suit. My point is that this is currently not happening for Google because they chose not to be part of that ecosystem. Funny, my view is 180 degrees different: Google got as much support as TomTom which used GPLed linux kernel. People are searching for prior art, inventing creative ways to overthrow these patents... what Google was unable to get but TomTom got?
The consequences of avoiding GPL Posted Aug 27, 2010 6:25 UTC (Fri) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link] > Section 7 (of GPLv2) is very clear what happens when you take enforcement actions on this: the licence terminates and the software becomes undistributable ... for everyone. Nothing in section 7 can cause the license to "terminate" (only violations of section 4 can cause that). It's true that, according to section 7, the target of said "enforcement action" is no longer allowed to redistribute the software; but that applies only to the target of the "enforcement action", not to "everyone". What's more, it's not at all clear that just any patent infringement lawsuit is enough to trigger this; only an "enforcement action" which forbids the target from "distribut[ing the software] so as to satisfy [...] [their] obligations under [the GPLv2]" triggers it. And finally, notice that the GPLv2 itself effectively says that section 7 does nothing at all: "This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License." (In other words, if you took the GPLv2 and removed section 7, the resulting license text would have exactly the same legal effects as the unmodified GPLv2.)
The consequences of avoiding GPL Posted Aug 18, 2010 0:42 UTC (Wed) by eou (guest, #69609) [Link]
Uh?
Today phones have gigabytes of storage and >= 512MB RAM, and can certainly ship the full J2SE library.
For that matter, they could also ship full desktop x86 Windows and Linux installations, and run that in qemu-i386 (not that it would provide a great user experience).
Of course, the "full implementation" requirements are totally absurd and ridiculous anyway.
own version of Python Posted Aug 17, 2010 22:20 UTC (Tue) by tnoo (subscriber, #20427) [Link]
> This kind of suit would not have happened had Google decided to make its own version of, say, Python.
That's a great way to describe Py3K, released as the Python 3.x series.
own version of Python Posted Aug 23, 2010 23:13 UTC (Mon) by mgedmin (subscriber, #34497) [Link]
Have you perhaps confused it with Unladen Swallow, which is a set of performance-enhancing patches for Python (originally 2.x, now 3.x) that originated in Google?
Py3K was driven entirely by the Python community. Granted, Google has snatched up quite a few Pythoneers over the years, including Guido van Rossum himself, but there's nothing in Py3K that would make it more suitable for Google's needs.
A very grumpy editor's thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 17, 2010 22:31 UTC (Tue) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link]
Dear Editor:
I feel your comments on this issue are valuable and timely. I would like to share them with about 700 people who follow me on identi.ca and twitter. But I guess from the fact that this article is still in $ mode that you don't want it to be gratis to all that this point.
So, I suggest that you make this one gratis sooner than normal, add a note at the top saying 'by popular demand', and I'll feel free to share links to it on identi.ca/twitter.
What do you think?
Regards,
Zooko
A very grumpy editor's thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 18, 2010 2:01 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]
You can use the "send a free link" button, at the bottom of the article text, for that.
(Actually, it's not clear what uses are OK for that button, but someone who once wrote for LWN told me it would be OK to use that button to submit a story to Slashdot. If it's OK for Slashdot, occasionally, I guess it's OK for your Identica feed, occasionally.)
A very grumpy editor's thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 17, 2010 22:43 UTC (Tue) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link]
"one cannot help but wonder what might happen if, say, an OpenSolaris or MySQL fork starts to overshadow the original."
Recent news shows that there is (very likely) an OpenSolaris fork:
http://gdamore.blogspot.com/2010/08/hand-may-be-forced.html
Whether it overshadows the original remains to be seen. I have high hopes because anger is a very powerful motivator in the open source community. ;-)
Regards,
Zooko
didn't sun do this to microsoft? Posted Aug 18, 2010 13:52 UTC (Wed) by tstover (subscriber, #56283) [Link]
This may have already been mentioned, but remember when Scott McNealy's sun brought that suite against ms in the 90's because the ms java implementation had support for a 2 button mouse or some such nonsense. That's why they created J++. I remember him specifically saying on tv that they "set a legal trap" for ms to step in. People forget things to quickly.
Also for a company that is suppose to be as smart as google, they should have just used their platform (droid) as a vehicle to bring the industry further past java instead of letting it fester some more.
didn't sun do this to microsoft? Not really, no. Posted Aug 18, 2010 14:55 UTC (Wed) by Trelane (subscriber, #56877) [Link] Microsoft was sued for "trademark infringement, false advertising, breach of contract, unfair competition, interference with prospective economic advantage, and inducing breach of contract." (http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-10-1997/jw-10-lawsuit.html) Regarding the differences between MSVM and a real JRE: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/articles/javase/javaplatform-136895.htmlTypically, just recompiling your program with the standard Java compiler, instead of the Microsoft command-line or Visual J++ compiler, reveals which nonstandard classes are being accessed. Areas that may need work include differences in the security model, applet packaging (JAR vs. CAB files), and if used local scratch space through the ClientStoreManager ( com.ms.io.clientstorage package). Using technologies like J/Direct (instead of JNI), Windows Foundation Classes (WFC), and Application Foundation Classes (AFC), accessing any Microsoft Windows VM specific classes may require developers to substitute similar standard technologies.http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/upgrade-136591.html However, if your applications or applets use any MS JVM-specific features, you will need to check for dependency issues and tune the code. Typically, just recompiling your program with the standard Java compiler reveals which nonstandard classes are being accessed. So MSVM + Most of Java + Microsoft extensions. This is perhaps a bit different from "because the ms java implementation had support for a 2 button mouse or some such nonsense" (The JNI stuff is very understandable. Sun didn't have a desktop monopoly, so making Java able to run the same no matter what platform it was running on (standardizing the environment and making it hard to invoke native (i.e.must-be-ported-to-every-platform) libraries) was good for them. Microsoft, having a monopoly on desktop operating systems, would like to make it as hard for developers as possible to create cross-platform applications (so make Microsoft-specific extensions to an otherwise standard environment and make it easy to call native (i.e must-be-ported-to-every-platform) libraries.)
didn't sun do this to microsoft? Not really, no. Posted Aug 18, 2010 15:44 UTC (Wed) by tstover (subscriber, #56283) [Link]
good information. interesting stuff.
I had never considered that they intentionally made calling native code so gross with JNI for those reasons. That is especially interesting to me, since I consider that the most frustrating aspect of java.
didn't sun do this to microsoft? Not really, no. Posted Aug 25, 2010 15:09 UTC (Wed) by Blaisorblade (guest, #25465) [Link]
JNI is IMHO complicated for two reasons:
1) a JNI library can be reused in binary form with whatever available JVM. That means that every access to an object must happen through a call to the JNI support library. 2) unlike, say, Python, you have a garbage collector instead of refcounting. Thus you need to use a different kind of API. I'm not sure if one is more complicated than another, but it is anyway a difference. 3) The unreliability of finalizers can easily cause leaks of native resources. Interestingly, .NET 1.0 got it even more wrong, by giving finalizers the familiar syntax of C++ destructor while they're a completely different beast (as well argued by Hans Boehm).
didn't sun do this to microsoft? Not really, no. Posted Sep 3, 2010 17:40 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Lua's FFI is surely proof that an FFI into a garbage-collected environment doesn't *have* to be an overcomplicated horror.
Cross-licensing Posted Aug 20, 2010 6:36 UTC (Fri) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link]
Since Oracle has a huge set of software and hardware products, I'd guess that one likely outcome is a counter-suit by Google, and possibly agreed cross-licensing of patents. Then the question is whether the licensing agreement covers Android distros such as CyanogenMod.
I can't see Google changing development languages in mid-stream - that would mean rewriting the Java parts of Android, and more importantly telling the developers of the 70,000 Android apps to start again (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_%28operating_system%29 )
Cross-licensing: Google's patent portfolio is likely too weak Posted Aug 27, 2010 14:10 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link] Your logic is right that usually two large players like Oracle and Google would resolve this through a cross-licensing deal. However, the way Oracle acts here indicates that they looked at the patents Google holds and don't feel there's any serious counterthreat. Google's patent portfolio is much weaker than many people believe.
A very grumpy editor's thoughts on Oracle Posted Aug 23, 2010 13:37 UTC (Mon) by dkg (subscriber, #55359) [Link] Sun was unlikely to sue over a not-really-Java virtual machineReally? The J++ lawsuit used trademark, not patent law, but Sun was certainly willing to sue over a not-really-Java virtual machine.
|
|||||||||||||