Maybe its just the money. For $50 million in costs, they might earn 100, 200, 500? 1 billion dollars? Who knows..
As far as losing developer good will / PR well... can you quantify that in cash, especially amongst Oracle's customers, I mean Sun spent a lot of time/money winning over developers and all they got was quarterly losses. On Aug 14, 7:40 pm, Fabrizio Giudici <fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 8/14/10 11:16 , Kevin Wright wrote: > > > > > > > This *could* all go really well > > > IANAL, but this scenario seems to be cropping up in a few forums. > > > Sun were contractually obliged to provide Apache a TCK licence > > under terms that are "non-discriminatory, fair and reasonable" > > (http://www.jroller.com/scolebourne/entry/a_question_of_ip) Had > > Apache been licensed for the TCK, then Harmony could pass it and so > > be considered a licensed implementation, with all applicable IP > > rights Android, by using harmony, would then be using a "licensed" > > implementation, and the foundation would crumble from beneath > > Oracle's lawsuit. > > > Apache are not-for-profit, and as such didn't have the financial > > or legal clout to press the issue of the JCK. Instead, they were > > limited to voting NO to all of Sun's JCP proposals by way of > > defiance. It's now becoming much clearer why they were making it > > into such a contentious issue... > > > So could Google pull a flanking manoeuvre, and bankroll a lawsuit > > on behalf of Apache/Harmony? I certainly do hope so... It would be > > an elegant solution to the "problem", and would have knock-on > > benefits for us all. Opening the doors to alternate, compliant, > > implementations could breathe more vitality into the platform than > > anything Oracle is able to achieve alone. > > But as far as I understand reading here and there, I'm not sure that > if Apache had access to the TCK it would be fine for Google. I don't > think so, indeed. The problem are still the patents. In fact: > > 1. If you fork the OpenJDK, you are protected by patents as it's one > of the features of the GPL. But Harmony didn't fork the OpenJDK. > 2. If you pass the TCK, I think you get the standard implementation > license. It guarantees protection by patents as far as you don't > remove or add anything to the java namespace. Unfortunately for > Google, they dropped a lot of stuff from it. That is, the point is > twofold: Harmony has got problems on its own because they weren't > given the TCK, but Android adds to this the fact that it's a subset of > Harmony. In other words, Android cannot pass the TCK, technically. > Frankly speaking, subsetting the runtime was a deliberate decision by > Google and they're paying for it. > > - -- > Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager > Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." > java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici -www.tidalwave.it/people > fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkxmZJ4ACgkQeDweFqgUGxc6fQCffzVsOaFR7St6qNSCZXHU2+S3 > AQkAni5rheSC+BH6VOvRoT2dl+pARpA5 > =4uMG > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
