On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Alexandro Colorado <j...@openoffice.org> wrote: > Well Google didn't use open source to start with. When Java was > "liberated" it created an OpenJDK platform. Danger (the original > company that created android) forked J2ME which is NOT free. So they > had that risk from the start, they just bet that Sun would never sue > them for that.
Regardless the licence of dalkiv, it is NOT a fork of J2ME. There is a GPL licence for J2ME but a big issue. For exceptions, you have to inherit from Exception. On OpenJDK, "Exception" is not GPL. That's good because it allows closed source to run on top of OpenJDK. But with J2ME, "Exception" is GPL. That means any program using any exception running on an LPGLed version of J2ME would have to be GPL. That would kill little companies and persons putting paid programs on the market place. So Google built a JVM from scratch. The issue with Oracle is software patents, not copyrights. It looks like there are some weak calls on copying code, api or docs. The issue with open source on this case is that even someone using OpenJDK may suffer from patent attack from Oracle. That's it. OpenJDK is not a full compliant specification. So, using thie "open source" piece you can suffer from patent attack. Another interesting news is that OpenSolaris won't get the code from Oracle in real time. As the licence allows, Oracle will release a binary with the new development being closed and releasing the code on CDDL months latter. That's not desired and this model is what I though Oracle could use for OOo. Release an paid binary and releases the LGPL code months latter. > Well OpenOffice.org is also carry by Novell, IBM and other companies, > however that is not the point. OpenOffice.org is not modifying Java > and forking it, also there is really no connection between Google's > success and Oracle lawsuit. Neither OpenSolaris was. And what happened? The community will have to fork or use another alternative (which is more likely to happen, because there is a project similar). I agreed with Cor, Sun spent a lot of money on OOo and other open source projects. But be aware Sun failed to monetize. Oracle bought Sun. Oracle changed the way they treat OpenSolaris (which won't be named so anymore), with intention to monetize. So... they spend a lot of money per year with OOo... how much they get in revenue? There is no guarantee they will never change the way they treat OOo. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@marketing.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@marketing.openoffice.org
