On 08/17/10 18:55, Edward Martinez wrote:
this bit is what gave me that thought.
excerpt:
Oracle Corp. is not planning to cooperate with the Illumos project and
OpenSolaris community, according to a leaked internal company memo.
Oracle's plans pose a threat to ZFS-based storage systems that use
"There may be an argument"
And you received you law schooling from Wikipedia and Google or perhaps Harvard
or Pepperdine?
I find it amusing that people with no exerience in law are throwing around
their knowledge of patent and contract law, and how Google and/or Oracle is
wrong/right about thi
Edward Martinez wrote:
> excerpt:
> Oracle Corp. is not planning to cooperate with the Illumos project and
> OpenSolaris community, according to a leaked internal company memo.
Given the way Oracle makes public statements, I am sure that we need to wait in
order to know for sure whether or no
> >
>
> Please think--and read--before you wrote.
>
> Google got sued because it didn't follow the terms of
> the GPL (and then failed to secure an alternative
> license from Sun). The IllumOS project has
> explicitly stated that it will abide by the terms of
> CDDL, under which OpenSolaris is
> while mentioning copyrights, i'm wondering if Oracle
> may also think it can sue illumos, like, it's suing
> google?
>
Please think--and read--before you wrote.
Google got sued because it didn't follow the terms of the GPL (and failed to
secure an alternative license from Sun). The IllumOS
> Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > Wikipedia says java is GPL. If you google around,
> you'll find that some
> > version of java was released under GPL in 2006.
> However, if you look around
> ... it is not readily available today, at least, not
> in all the places you
> would be most likely to loo
On 08/17/10 08:55, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
There may be an argument: That google would have been indemnified from
oracle lawsuit if only they had started with the GPL version of java, and
continued developing it under GPL ... But google didn't do that. So it's
irrelevant to the present lawsui
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> Wikipedia says java is GPL. If you google around, you'll find that some
> version of java was released under GPL in 2006. However, if you look around
> ... it is not readily available today, at least, not in all the places you
> would be most likely to look for java dow
>
> You might even consider reading Jonathan I.
> Schwartz's last blog so far:
>
> http://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/good
> -artists-copy-great-artists-steal/
>
> Also covers copyright issues...
>
> Matthias
> atthias Pfützner | Tel.: +49 700 PFUETZNER | Er
> meint wohl
On Aug 17, 2010, at 13:55, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> it is not readily available today,
... apart from in every Linux distribution where it appears as "IcedTea".
S.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
>
> Where are you coming from? You have no idea what you're talking about,
> or
> else, you're talking about a different case. If we're talking about
> SunOr
Unless you're an attorney or have inside information, why not leave the legal
wrangling to the lawyers?
Otherwise you're throwing around baseless opinions that mean nothing.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing li
> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of W. Wayne Liauh
>
> > Not only is this statement incorrect (lawsuit is not
> > about GPL) ..
>
> While the term GPL appears nowhere in the complaint, believe me (of
> course you
> Not only is this statement incorrect (lawsuit is not
> about GPL) ..
While the term GPL appears nowhere in the complaint, believe me (of course you
don't have to), this is EXACTLY what the lawsuit is about. And I also believe
that this is one of the main reasons that David Boies is taking thi
On Aug 16, 2010, at 23:05, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> Java is not GPL. It's not even open source.
Sun's implementation of Java is available in an open source form known as
"OpenJDK", licensed under GPLv2. Had Googled used that instead of Apache
harmony and Dalvik they would have received bo
> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of W. Wayne Liauh
Woah. Where to start.
> Sun is offering Java as a free and open software under the GPL v2
> license.
Java is not GPL. It's not even open source. It's dist
> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Ignacio Marambio Catán
>
> On 8/16/2010 12:14 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> > * Sun clearly had the intent to sue, or else they wouldn't have
> bothered
> > filing all those pa
On 08/16/10 11:14, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
* Sun clearly had the intent to sue, or else they wouldn't have bothered
filing all those patents, and wouldn't have bothered entering negotiations
with Google.
Not true. Most companies use patents as they were intended, to allow
them to profit from
On 08/14/10 01:50, Prudhvi Krishna Surapaneni wrote:
I know, that most of the software written for Android is well sort of Java.
Maybe it time for
some Google Go for Android? ( if all else fail that is. )
Recall that Sun previously sued Microsoft for making something that
was "sort of Jav
David Brodbeck wrote:
> Well, not quite. In that hypothetical scenario, the existing Java
> implementation would be prior art and would make the patent invalid. The
> problem is the Patent Office generally doesn't reject patents based on prior
> art, because they don't have the expertise. S
>
> But it does make it very difficult for FLOSS because
> every times you
> develop something, it is most likely someone else has
> already filed the
> patents, and you are at risks from being sued.
>
> -Ghee
Google is trying to hide under the FOSS umbrella. This is very deceiving.
Sun is
On Aug 16, 2010, at 8:02 AM, Ghee Teo wrote:
> On 08/16/10 04:14 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> * Sun clearly had the intent to sue, or else they wouldn't have bothered
>> filing all those patents, and wouldn't have bothered entering negotiations
>> with Google.
>>
> Patents were filled in ge
You (Ignacio Marambio Catán) wrote:
> On 8/16/2010 12:14 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> >> From: Edward Ned Harvey [mailto:sh...@nedharvey.com]
> >>
> >> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100815110101756
> >
> > The points I'm taking away are:
> >
> > * Google clearly understood they wer
On 08/16/10 04:14 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
* Sun clearly had the intent to sue, or else they wouldn't have bothered
filing all those patents, and wouldn't have bothered entering negotiations
with Google.
Patents were filled in general years before the software/product are
released. Those
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 8/16/2010 12:14 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
>> From: Edward Ned Harvey [mailto:sh...@nedharvey.com]
>>
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100815110101756
>
> The points I'm taking away are:
>
> * Google clearly understood they were e
> From: Edward Ned Harvey [mailto:sh...@nedharvey.com]
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100815110101756
The points I'm taking away are:
* Google clearly understood they were entering questionable territory. Or
else they wouldn't have bothered with the clean-room, and wouldn't have
> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jussi Nieminen
>
> So much for pro-open source
> attitude! It doesn't exist -maybe it never did after Oracle acquired
> Sun. Will anyone trust Oracle any more?
Apparently, this
You (Edward Ned Harvey) wrote:
> > From: Alan Coopersmith [mailto:alan.coopersm...@oracle.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 1:56 PM
> >
> > Edward Ned Harvey wrote
> > > Was java anything other than a money pit for sun to dump cash into?
> > Did
> > > anybody ever pay for it?
> >
> > Yes - f
>> > Has anyone else taken note of the domain name of the law firm
>> > representing Oracle in the suit against Google?
>>
>> Please forgive me for being too lazy or stupid... What is the domain name?
mofo.com
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opens
On 08/13/10 22:11, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of David R. Linn
Has anyone else taken note of the domain name of the law firm
representing Oracle in the suit against Google?
Please fo
On 8/15/2010 4:27 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Alan Coopersmith [mailto:alan.coopersm...@oracle.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 1:56 PM
Edward Ned Harvey wrote
Was java anything other than a money pit for sun to dump cash into?
Did
anybody ever pay for it?
On 08/16/10 11:27 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: Alan Coopersmith [mailto:alan.coopersm...@oracle.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 1:56 PM
Edward Ned Harvey wrote
Was java anything other than a money pit for sun to dump cash into?
Did
anybody ever pay for it?
> From: Alan Coopersmith [mailto:alan.coopersm...@oracle.com]
> Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 1:56 PM
>
> Edward Ned Harvey wrote
> > Was java anything other than a money pit for sun to dump cash into?
> Did
> > anybody ever pay for it?
>
> Yes - for instance, all the cell phone makers who paid S
Edward Ned Harvey wrote
> Was java anything other than a money pit for sun to dump cash into? Did
> anybody ever pay for it?
Yes - for instance, all the cell phone makers who paid Sun to license
Java for their cell phones.
Consumers tend not to pay directly since the money was already handled in
> Oracle sues Google over Java!
>
> Un-believable! Now it is proven what Oracle's
> intentions are! Is Java free??? What is the future of
> Java now??? So much for pro-open source attitude! It
> doesn't exist -maybe it never did after Oracle
> acquired Sun. Will anyone trust Oracle any more?
>
>
On 8/14/2010 7:27 AM, Matthias Pfützner wrote:
You (Edward Ned Harvey) wrote:
Was java anything other than a money pit for sun to dump cash into? Did
anybody ever pay for it?
I recently read the jdk license terms. It says anybody can use it for any
reason other than nuclear facilites. So
You (Edward Ned Harvey) wrote:
> Was java anything other than a money pit for sun to dump cash into? Did
> anybody ever pay for it?
>
> I recently read the jdk license terms. It says anybody can use it for any
> reason other than nuclear facilites. So maybe Sun was making money off the
> LHC.
> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Paul Gress
>
> My view on this situation is Oracle now killed Java. I believe there
> will be many Java developers who will stop developing for fear of
> uncertainty from Oracl
I know, that most of the software written for Android is well sort of Java.
Maybe it time for
some Google Go for Android? ( if all else fail that is. )
being a strong supporter of OpenSource is a good enough reason to be biased
towards Google IMHO.
-Prudhvi Surapaneni.
_
On 08/13/10 10:39 PM, devsk wrote:
I find this a little comical in one respect. Google
specifically tried to avoid paying Sun for the use of
Java intellectual property, copyrights and such in
Android. In the same breath Google is went after
Augen for instance for using an "Unlicensed" version
fo
> I find this a little comical in one respect. Google
> specifically tried to avoid paying Sun for the use of
> Java intellectual property, copyrights and such in
> Android. In the same breath Google is went after
> Augen for instance for using an "Unlicensed" version
> for Android which is partly
> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris-
> discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of David R. Linn
>
> Has anyone else taken note of the domain name of the law firm
> representing Oracle in the suit against Google?
Please forgive me for being too lazy or stupid
I find this a little comical in one respect. Google specifically tried to
avoid paying Sun for the use of Java intellectual property, copyrights and such
in Android. In the same breath Google is went after Augen for instance for
using an "Unlicensed" version for Android which is partly based on
On 13 Aug 2010, at 22:28, David R. Linn wrote:
> Has anyone else taken note of the domain name of the law firm representing
> Oracle in the suit against Google?
>
> I had to check the date - that sort of thing usually pops up on April 1.
They're a familiar enough name to folks interested in th
> Has anyone else taken note of the domain name of the
> law firm representing Oracle in the suit against
> Google?
Has anyone ever heard the name "David Boies"?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensola
Has anyone else taken note of the domain name of the law firm representing
Oracle in the suit against Google?
I had to check the date - that sort of thing usually pops up on April 1.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss m
On 08/13/10 09:34 AM, Ignacio Marambio Catán wrote:
have you read the suit?
if oracle's lawers think android is somehow unlawfully affecting its
java assets, they have to sue, they have an obligation to their
shareholders, they paid quite a few billions for that after all
Sun would have had to do
nixcons...@yahoo.com
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
- Original Message
From: Ignacio Marambio Catán
To: Jussi Nieminen
Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Sent: Fri, August 13, 2010 8:34:29 AM
Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] Oracle sues Google over Java!
have you read the suit?
if oracle's lawers think andr
have you read the suit?
if oracle's lawers think android is somehow unlawfully affecting its
java assets, they have to sue, they have an obligation to their
shareholders, they paid quite a few billions for that after all
Sun would have had to do the same thing had their lawyers reached the
same con
> Oracle sues Google over Java!
>
> Un-believable! Now it is proven what Oracle's
> intentions are! Is Java free??? What is the future of
> Java now??? So much for pro-open source attitude! It
> doesn't exist -maybe it never did after Oracle
> acquired Sun. Will anyone trust Oracle any more?
>
>
Oracle sues Google over Java!
Un-believable! Now it is proven what Oracle's intentions are! Is Java free???
What is the future of Java now??? So much for pro-open source attitude! It
doesn't exist -maybe it never did after Oracle acquired Sun. Will anyone trust
Oracle any more?
Too bad. Too b
51 matches
Mail list logo
