They shouldn't claim that Oracle are suing open source - for one. It isn't helpful to the wider community to add FUD to the FUD (but it might be helpful to google to be dishonest like this).
On Sep 7, 9:46 pm, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, no question. Google is milking the "Whoa, what the heck is oracle > doing here" angle as much as they can, and they are definitely > grandstanding to do it. But why shouldn't they? If ever the argument > "corporations do whatever they need to do to earn money" holds, it > holds here. Google understands the vagaries of the wider internet tech > community exactly in the way Oracle does not. > > On Sep 7, 2:14 am, Michael Neale <michael.ne...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Not disputing the "attack" on open source angle - but Oracle are > > "filing a lawsuit" against open source, as said by Josh > > Bloch:http://googlecode.blogspot.com/2010/08/update-on-javaone.html > > > Google are adding to the fud by talking like this, and a lot of this > > is grandstanding to get the development community (more) onside with > > google. I think there are no good guys in this sorry tale. > > > On Sep 7, 8:33 am, Reinier Zwitserloot <reini...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Might just be two euro-cents, but, spot on. > > > > I believe the Apache Harmony TCK thing is in regards to the technical > > > side of it: Apache Harmony does pass the actual TCK, at least it is > > > rumoured to do so, as in all the test cases pass. It is not, however, > > > officially a recipient of the official TCK seal of approval and it has > > > gained no legal rights or responsibilities for passing it. > > > > The (ridiculous) broadness of these patents, along with the complete > > > silence in regards to Oracle's intentions here, means it IS an attack > > > on open source, and on developers around the world in general (because > > > it opens the door to just about any language being sued by oracle). I > > > understand that this feels rather broad, and that silence is the > > > prudent legal course, but none of that changes the fact that the FOSS > > > community, and really developers in general, cannot take this as > > > anything but a direct attack on their future. To do otherwise is to > > > presume Oracle is merely using this as a convenient stick to beat > > > google with, and would never use them anywhere else. Why would anyone > > > make that assumption? > > > > Oracle should have thought the backlash through a lot more than they > > > have. It is also entirely unclear what oracle's agenda is here; if it > > > is merely a bunch of licensing dosh, they would have filed in East > > > Texas. They haven't. Lack of information is understandably making > > > everyone rather upset and on edge. Oracle can't very well claim they > > > didn't see that coming. Or, well, they can, but if so, their PR / > > > legal team should get a stern talking to for dropping the ball like > > > this. How could they not have seen this fallout coming? > > > > On Sep 6, 7:19 pm, BoD <b...@jraf.org> wrote: > > > > > Excellent episode as always :) > > > > > 1/ At some point Joe and also Dick if I'm not mistaken say that Google > > > > shouldn't say that the law suit is against Open Source and that saying > > > > so is purely a PR move. > > > > But since Android is based on the Apache Harmony Project, don't you > > > > think it *is* fair to say that therefore, attacking Android is also > > > > attacking Apache Harmony? (And thus, "the Open Source community"?) > > > > IANAL but it seems that at least some of the patents they claim > > > > concern the 'Harmony' part of Android - and so, if they win the law > > > > suit, what does it mean for Harmony? > > > > > 2/ At some point it was said that the Apache Harmony Project passed > > > > the SE TCK (that it is certified Java SE), but not the ME TCK because > > > > of the Field of Use restriction. > > > > But if I understand correctly (feel free to correct me) Harmony didn't > > > > pass the Java SE 5 TCK > > > > (cf:http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletterfaq.html) > > > > > 3/ At some point it was said that what Google did was no different > > > > from what Microsoft did (re. the 1997 Sun vs Microsoft case). > > > > But this *was* different, the 1997 lawsuit was about "trademark > > > > infringement, false advertising, breach of contract, unfair > > > > competition, interference with prospective economic advantage, and > > > > inducing breach of contract". > > > > Basically Microsoft called their version of Java "Java" and they > > > > didn't have the right to do so (by contract). > > > > But - and I think Dick knows this all too well ;) - Google made sure > > > > to be very careful to not call their version "Java". And so all they > > > > could find was silly (imho) patents claims (actually this case is also > > > > a Copyright one but it seems we don't know much details about this > > > > part...) > > > > > Just my two euro-cents ;) > > > > > BoD -- 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.
