Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #9424
| From | BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
| Subject | Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? |
| Date | 2011-11-02 22:30 -0700 |
| Organization | albasani.net |
| Message-ID | <j8t8uf$pfc$1@news.albasani.net> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <4eb0a862$0$294$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <j8qkqm$pvh$1@news.albasani.net> <4eb1b594$0$284$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <j8seke$rij$1@news.albasani.net> <4eb1c1c1$0$288$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> |
On 11/2/2011 3:18 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > On 11/2/2011 6:01 PM, BGB wrote: >> On 11/2/2011 2:26 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>> On 11/2/2011 1:35 AM, BGB wrote: >>>> On 11/1/2011 7:18 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote: >>>>> On 10/28/2011 4:29 PM, jebblue wrote: >>>>>> With Oracle on one side suing Google over Android >>>>>> and on the other cooing about how many phones >>>>>> run Java; I'm wondering if it might be worth it >>>>>> to put my ideological views about Microsoft aside >>>>>> and consider going back to .Net. >>>>> >>>>> Why should the question whether Google infringed on >>>>> Oracle copyright or patents affect your choice of >>>>> programming language? >>>>> >>>> >>>> maybe because it asserts that Java is not a free/open technology, >>>> and is >>>> essentially a proprietary product owned by Oracle? >>> >>> First: Google's potential problem is because they are creating >>> a Java not using Java - I would expect the OP to talk about >>> using Java not creating a Java. >>> >> >> it still reflects badly on Java as a whole. >> >> granted, this issue wouldn't likely matter so much to end developers, >> except maybe as a "matter of principle" or similar (say, not to depend >> on products which are purely proprietary or are encumbered by patents or >> similar...). > > I think the only thing you can conclude from that is that Google > has a better PR department than Oracle. > > Almost all developers want copyright enforced and a good chunk > of them are for patents as well. > I agree with copyright, but not with software patents. software patents create far too much room for commercial abuse, meanwhile being largely outside the reach of "the common man" (granted, if every "Joe Blow" was patenting whatever he could think up, this would be a much bigger mess...). a much better solution would be likely to limit patents to actual hardware devices, and to only those components which exist in hardware. otherwise, IMHO the only real valid reason to get software patents is otherwise to "protect" oneself or others from other people trying to get a patent over the same technology and then suing over it. >>> Second: Google's legal situation would be a lot better if their >>> Java had actually been a Java (been certified as being a Java SE >>> implementation after passing the TCK) due to the JCP rules. For >>> whatever reasons they are not, but I am sure that if Google >>> could turn back time, then they would have gotten it certified >>> (adding the standard Java GUI stuff would not cost more than a few >>> months of legal bills!). >>> >> >> true, but the issue may be that such rules exist in the first place. >> >> in a truly open technology, one is free to use the technology however >> they so well please, including the creation of poor / non-conformant >> implementations thereof. > > Sure. > > And you can do that for Java. > > There are just two caveats: > - you can not call it Java > - you are not covered by the patent license/promise > to compliant implementations > fair enough, but this does mean that it is, effectively, not a free or open technology. >>> Third: there is really nothing changed. If you infringe on anyone's >>> copyright or patents then the court can order you to pay - if you don't >>> the the court should not do so. It was like that before the Oracle >>> suit and it is like that after. >> >> yes, this is the case. >> >> however, many people had held the view (mistaken or not) that Java was a >> free and open technology, similar to, say, C and C++. however, this >> isn't really the case, and the Oracle vs Google lawsuit matter serves to >> illustrate this issue. > > It is exactly like C or C++. > > If you think you can not be sued for copyright or patent infringement > when writing a C or C+ compiler then you are wrong. > > Those rules apply to all software. Languages does not matter. Open > source or closed source does not matter. > except that C and C++ are free and open, as per these definitions. except: if one doesn't use anyone's source, copyright doesn't apply; there are no known patents which apply directly to the languages; no one has the names trademarked; ... similarly, any related patents have to be either non-existent free use for everyone for it to be suitable for ISO's standardization rules (hence why there can't currently be ISO Java or ISO C#, as for either case, the owning companies would have to give up claim on any of their relevant patents. however both C and C++ are ISO standards...). there is ECMA C#, but this is less safe, and only a small subset of the language is covered (if one writes a more "complete" implementation, and re-implements MS's APIs, they may once again be under patent land, which was sort of a big issue with Mono and similar). say, one can potentially get, say, the FSF pissed off if they use GCC-derived source code in ways not compatible with the GPL. however, if one writes the compiler from the ground up based on the standards, the FSF would have no claim. likewise, the FSF has no claim over LLVM/CLang, or LCC, or MSVC, or TinyC, or... there is, effectively, no central authority who solidly owns much of anything WRT these languages (and, by extension, no one with much claim for a lawsuit regarded to use of these languages). >>>> granted, there are always C, C++, assembler, ... which are not >>>> particularly "owned" by anyone. >>> >>> Most of those also enforces copyright and licenses - you try >>> pick some code from GCC and embed it in a closed source app - FSF >>> lawyers will come after you! >>> >> >> but, this is not what Google was doing... >> >> Android was based on Apache's class-library, which used a more BSD-style >> license, and in this case it would be Apache who would be the ones' to >> try to argue about infringing copyrights. >> >> Android, however, was not based on Oracles' source, but instead >> (debatably) violated patents. > > ???? > > Oracle are suing Google for both copyright and patent infringements. > AFAIK it was patent. the copyright claim was invalid due to Android/Dalvik not using any of Oracles' source-code, and instead having been based on the Apache Harmony project. however, arguably some of the patents did apply, since patents are subject to "spooky action at a distance", and don't require any direct use of code or technology. >> GCC then is simply a popular C compiler, but by no means the only C >> compiler, nor do they hold any particular ownership over the C language >> (actually, some have argued that GCC doesn't actually implement C, due >> to its many extensions and minor areas of non-conformance with the C >> standards). >> >> >> one can implement their own C compiler though (say, from the ground up), >> add whatever the hell extensions they want to the language, and maybe >> leave out whatever features, and no one will come after them with a >> lawsuit. > > Same with Java. > > Just don't call it Java unless it is 100% Java. The C equivalent > of this is not to call it C99 compliant unless you are. > one could call it C99 compliant without much threat of lawsuit, although they would likely get some amount of hate-mail and dirty stares from people who know better (granted, it has been alleged that there are no entirely conformant C99 implementations in existence, and C1X has made optional some of the C99 features which few people bothered to implement). the issue partly is that the ISO committee in both cases has started to see themselves as the authority, and has added features to both C99 and C1X which lack much precedent in real implementations, causing them to not be entirely well received (by either compiler implementers or developers). but, anyways, C compilers can get by with a K&R or C90 style variant, and still call it C. granted, the assumption of homogeneity is much lower with C, and many implementation requirements much more lax. luckily, despite my efforts taking a few ideas from the JVM architecture, my language (BGBScript) is decidedly different from Java (and is anyways more closely related to ECMAScript and ActionScript), and there is little chance of people confusing them. > And don't violate copyrights and patents - as for any other software. > yep, however one can write a compiler without there being much risk of lawsuits "just because"...
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
back to .Net? lesser of two evils? jebblue <n@n.nnn> - 2011-10-28 15:29 -0500
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Steve Sobol <sjsobol@JustThe.net> - 2011-10-28 15:16 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-02 07:05 -0300
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 22:46 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-01 22:18 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 22:35 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-02 03:17 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 07:58 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:06 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 00:01 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:48 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:52 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 07:21 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:30 -0500
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 22:48 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? coder <j-code@speak.invalid> - 2011-11-02 17:36 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 17:13 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-03 00:49 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 00:10 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Cindy <c.thurston@frell.okb.uwa.edu> - 2011-11-03 04:41 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 05:36 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? thoolen <tholen01@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 23:13 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 08:28 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 10:04 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 10:19 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 14:32 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 17:20 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 21:34 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:57 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 09:25 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:25 -0500
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 23:05 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 17:26 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 15:01 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:18 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:20 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 22:30 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:30 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:40 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-11-01 23:42 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 10:22 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:02 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 20:10 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 20:45 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 09:56 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:01 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? markspace <-@.> - 2011-11-02 15:26 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-02 18:35 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 20:53 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-03 21:45 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-04 05:50 -0300
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 10:39 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-04 17:38 -0400
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom3minus1@eastlink.ca> - 2011-11-04 18:47 -0300
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 10:11 -0700
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? Arne Vajhøj <arne@vajhoej.dk> - 2011-11-09 20:24 -0500
Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils? BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-09 23:42 -0700
csiph-web