Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by digitalzombie 2833 days ago
I remember exactly what Sun Microsystem did it breached and been waving a carrot in front of Apache about TCK. What's stopping Oracle from giving TCK now? Also that's exactly not the whole truth you're presenting.

https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the_asf_s_position...

> Unfortunately, Sun breached the JSPA in 2006 by licensing the Java SE Compatibility Kit under terms inconsistent with its prior representations to ASF and its obligations under the JSPA, and incompatible with ASF's development of Apache Harmony. ASF urged Sun to honor its agreements, but after Sun persisted in its breach for a year, ASF withdrew from the JCP. At the time, Oracle supported ASF's position that Sun was in breach of the JSPA. But after acquiring Sun, Oracle adopted Sun's policy, disregarding the limits of the JSPA that formed the basis for ASF's participation in the JSP and acceptance of the various TCK licenses.

> Some people easily forget or act as if past actions/history aren't a metric, while others forget who actually did them in first place.

Choosing a video to support half a truth or a part of timeline doesn't mean anything.

Here's another source:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/12/apach...

> The heart of the issue is that Apache can't certify that its open source Java implementation—called Harmony—conforms with the Java language standards because Oracle refuses to supply the necessary test suites under a suitably open license. Oracle's position on the issue falls afoul of JCP policies, which stipulate that standards and other relevant materials must be freely redistributable and made available under terms that are conducive to enabling third-party open source implementations.

You're deflecting any and all of Oracle's action toward Google should have bought it and well Sun did it first. That's a terrible argument to counter my point of Oracle past actions being terrible toward open source. The "google should have bought Java" is such a hand wave especially when Google did a clean room implementation of Java and involve the issue of if API is copyrightable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_America,_Inc._v._Google...).

1 comments

Google did such a good job implementating Java that to this day there are still compatibility issues with standard Java, the library is incomplete and not all features of a standard JVM are available in ART.

They just broke Java the same way as Microsoft tried first, but since its the "Do no evil" company it gets a free pass.

Had it been other company and the Google support team would have another opinion.

I care about companies that care about Java, not those that fork the eco-system.

There are several companies playing by the rules, selling JVM implementations since the Sun days, none of them ever had issues either with Sun or Oracle.

Again the main point of my post was the FUD about Oracle and opensource is not base on nothing. Oracle's past actions toward open source shows this. You're welcome to disagree with counter argument, I would like to learn and be wrong if I am wrong (or missing something).

But I failed to see how your personal opinion on fork on java and ecosystem have to do with my original post on Oracle's FUD and past action against open source.

If none of your cases you've bought in this argument/debate is toward this topic then I think you're pushing a narrative and being dogmatic toward Java. I have no beef against the language but I am wary of Oracle. I'm merely refuting/adding toward the comment of the post I'm replying to.

Fair enough, although had IBM bought Sun instead, as no other company cared to do an offer, I doubt that they wouldn't have done exactly the same thing towards Google.