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?
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds