SUN/Oracle say Java is $0 to write applications. Google provided something to run those applications that was not a Java virtual machine but a Dalvik virtual machine. They complied fully with the licence provided for $0 for developers. That’s the only code Android/Linux needed, not the Java virtual machine. No one else paid for the privilege of writing Java applications, so why should Google?

In yesterday’s testimony, Google’s guys stated under oath that money was not the problem. The irrational compulsion to control the ecosystem was a problem. Google was willing to pay for a licence but could not accept the terms. Google insisted on Android/Linux being FLOSS and SUN, apparently, did not. SUN’s position makes no sense to me. Android/Linux could have multiplied the use of Java and SUN could have been paid for allowing SUN’s Java virtual machine to ride on smart thingies, but SUN wanted to control Android. The whole point of Android was to increase the numbers of users of search/advertising to drive revenue and Google wanted no one to have a hand on their throat. SUN wanted to be the hand, just as M$ was the hand on the x86 PC.

”
Google: Was Java developed at Sun while you were CTO?

Andy Rubin: Yes.”

So, what Google did was reasonable, correct and OK by SUN. Oracle is dead on this issue.

In other words: Google wants to use a product of SUN/Oracle (JAVA) that is very useful – rather, essential – for their product (ANDROID), but they don’t want to pay for it.

> That’s pretty reasonable.

That’s one way of putting it. It reminds me of the bankrobber who was asked by the judge: “Why did you rob that bank?” His famous reply: “That’s where the money is!” In this sense, yes, what Google does is “reasonable”. But why do you defend it? Oh yes, Google never ever does anything evil, only the others do …

Robert Pogson Java API is made of functions and Classes.
“An API does not cause a computer to produce any result. That is up to the implementation.”
Its the classes that make this wrong. Classes produce a result or effect produced result.

This is where we are in hell. Classes do interact with each other. Function overloading. So scary enough they can and do produce a results.

If Java API was just functions not protected this has already be ruled as clear by the judge. So C is mostly free and clear.

So you example is right Robert.
“function sqrt(x:real):real;”

What if that was a virtual function like for average that depending on what class would be overloaded with something else. Polymorphism that is defined in classes is where the problem starts.

Because this is effecting the results the program will produce. So read what you quoted careful.
“A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.”

The loop hole indirectly threatens to turn classes into a computer program in there own right. If this is the case Google owns Oracle.

Of course a classes could be argued as a method of operation. If that is upheld Google owns Oracle nothing over the copyright infringement bit.

Its not functions where the problem is. Its the classes that contain the functions in Java and Android where the problem is.

C++, Java, C#, Vala basically any Class based langauge there has been no ruling if Classes are in fact API or Copyright Protected Works. Also what conditions if any make Classes a copyright protected work. So far a class that is just a list of functions has been ruled as not copyright protected work.

The name of the class might be copyright protected judge is not sure on this. So that google copied class Math and its stilled called Math it might be a copyright infrignement. If it had been renamed like science it would not be for sure.

Classes with polymorphic interactions again judge is not sure on this either.

Yes Oracle vs Google is a very important case. To clear up where the lines are with classed based languages. The lines in function based languages was cleared up years ago.

When you think about the complexity of this problem I am thankful I am not the judge.

“Stolen” is not applicable. One can make illegal copies without stealing anything.

function sqrt(x:real):real;

Copied or not, that is not protectable under copyright. It is not a “work”.

” Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
(7) sound recordings; and
(8) architectural works.
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.”

APIs are a “method of operation”. Sqrt takes a real argument and gives a real result.

They may not even be treated as “computer programmes” in law:
“A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.”

An API does not cause a computer to produce any result. That is up to the implementation.

This is where GPL enforcement gets fun. Someone steals GPL they had no license to use it so GPL does not even enter the case. Oracle is basically conducting GPL enforcement the other way.

Ivan the thing is openjdk that google could have used is under GPLv2 + linking exception. Openjdk is the base to Oracle Java. There is also GNU Classpath with the GNU Classpath exception license that includes same parts as what Google took as well.

So not just GPLv2. So there is no big bang against android. Since android can change the parts to a license that is still closed source friendly legally.

Basically Ivan and Robert Pogson if android had those API under GPL using one of the accepted forms by Oracle(Ie including linking exceptions) there would not be a Copyright case at all. Effects to Android minimal. In fact before the court case and threats of damaged even started Oracle asked Google without bill to license what they believed was their code correctly.

Yes it could ended before it started if there was a clear define of what a work is.

“Google is claiming the documentation was in the public domain, but even if it was GPL, they could just change the licence back on the API. Where’s the “damage” to Oracle? None.”

That is the problem the documentation was not public domain either. By copyright law damage is done because your product was distributed under the wrong license. So other people could believe your product was not protected by the license you wished for.

Yes Oracle is unclear if it has a copyright infringement case. Judge has also found that the section what Oracle is unclear about has no test case and no law document tell you if its right or wrong. Google first belief that they were protected by Sega v. Accolade has already been broken. So now Google is not clear either.

Its a real poor Judge problem. He has to work out some form of ruling based off law to cover problem if it happens in future.

If it too hard the Judge can even rule that it cannot be decided by the courts and send it into the political system for a bill to be passed defining it. I hope this does not happen.

Google created a platform that converted code of Java applications to run under Dalvik. They did that only because SUN encumbered Java virtual machines with the TCK licence. Google wanted the vast resource of Java developers but did not want to cut SUN/Oracle in on the action. That’s pretty reasonable. The only place where they have come close to doing wrong is getting too close to the Java APIs in Dalvik. If they had translated Java to x86 or Java to ARM instead of Dalvik the situation would be crystal clear. A lot of work was done replicating the Java API implementation that would not have needed to be done if SUN had come to an agreement with Google. I just don’t see anything wrong with what Google did except dodging the GPL. If they were going to share the code with the world, there is no advantage to anyone using ASL and there are lots of disadvantages like people suing each other. Owning Java gave SUN no right to prevent other from doing similar work. SUN did not own those developers and SUN had allowed anyone to write Java applications.

And do those exceptions exist in the gpl?
No.

What license was the copied code under?
gpl.

What part of that don’t you understand?

One of the few areas that Sun reserved for significant licensing revenue was mobile phone technology. All telecoms that used Java, which was most of them, paid Sun for their specific flavor of a small, powerful Java platform for their smart phone.

So even though Sun could slap down Apache for numerous invasions of Java licensing rules, Sun left them largely alone because of their contribution to greater Java acceptance–as long as it did not imperil Sun’s mobile phone licensing revenue. The rule was: Developers are free to write their applications for personal profit, but companies that commercialize a platform should pay to have their Java implementation certified.

Google invaded Sun’s only real revenue stream for Java–hiding behind the Apache non-license and thought they could bully and out-lawyer the hapless Sun CEO, Johnathon Schwartz.

Oracle will monetize Java where Sun could not. They will not destroy the developer community or the Java ecosystem. But Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt–who had been Sun’s CTO–thought he could get a billion dollar free-ride by pushing Sun in their one sweet-spot for Java–smart phone licenses.

The judge is pushing on both sides in this case to get them to ultimately accept his compromise. He says it will start at $100 million (the figure that Google and Sun were discussing when negotiations broke off) and could go much higher. Oracle will also have an ongoing financial/development interest in Android.

That is a simple case if it not a independent work it should have remained under GPL license.”

Oracle is not suing Google for violating GPL. Even the judge is unclear what Oracle is suing about… Even Oracle is unclear what Oracle is suing about…

“Judge: Let me try my question a different way. Let’s say we ask the jury 2 questions. “With regard to these 37 packages, did Google copy the SSO?”

Oracle: I think that’s right. Let us think about it and get back to you.”

In effect, Google may be accused of copying 1/1000 of Java to make Android, by using the same documentation. They distributed that documentation to developers, a tiny violation if any compared to the distribution of Android/Linux on smart thingies. Google is claiming the documentation was in the public domain, but even if it was GPL, they could just change the licence back on the API. Where’s the “damage” to Oracle? None.