Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by foamdino 5171 days ago
The key points are here: "So where does this whole thing about the field-of-use restrictions (that prevent an independent implementation from being used on mobile devices) come into play. Why, it's in that separate TCK license referred to in Oracle's third slide above. But notice that in that slide Oracle maintains that "[t]hese restrictions prevent Apache Harmony from implementing Java SE." They do no such thing! Apache never signed the TCK license. That didn't prevent Apache from creating and distributing Harmony; it only meant that they couldn't call it Java or imply that it was Java-compliant, a point which Sun admitted (see Jonathan Schwartz's comment in the second Google slide).

Many of Oracle's claims and presentation in this case will be based on misdirection and creating a false understanding of Oracle's rights and Oracle's right to restrict the activities of others. The Oracle position is in direct conflict with the previous statements and actions of Sun upon which Google relied. If Google can keep the jury straight on these points, Oracle will be shown to have significantly overreached in bringing the copyright claims in this suit."

Apache started the Harmony project in 'co-operation' with Sun on the understanding that they would be given access to the TCK tests when they needed them. This was based on Sun telling Apache that they would 'waive' the FOU restrictions for Apache so that Harmony could claim to be Java (ie. it passes the tests).

IBM and others contributed significant amounts of code to Harmony - why, because having a truly independent version of Java has real value to them as they base a lot of their business on Java infrastructure.

Google got involved and licensed the Harmony libraries (which is fine, ASL allows that).

Oracle buys Sun and then does 180 degree turn on its stance for supporting Harmony (Oracle where one of the bug supporters of Harmony when Sun owned Java).

People just reading a tiny bit of the press on this and thinking they understand the nuances are almost certainly wrong. There is a lot of history around the licensing of the TCK and Oracle is trying to deceive people about the TCK license vs the license to use Java.

Oracle's behaviour ensured that Apache dropped out of the JCP (along with many other high profile open source people).

see: http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletter.html

1 comments

I don't think Oracle has a copyright case, but they may have a patent case (with what few claims are remaining). If you are derived from OpenJDK you have a patent license from Oracle. If you pass the TCK, you also get a patent license. But if you do neither, you've got nothing.

BTW, I don't think Oracle did a 180 on anything. All Harmony's FOU problems happened years before Oracle bought Sun. I suspect there were influential people in JavaSoft who never believed in independent third-party implementations and just led Harmony along because they thought it would never amount to anything. When Harmony started looking like a threat to J2ME revenue, they invented the FOU to stop it.

As far as I know the FOU was in place way before 2005 when Apache started on Harmony. Oracle did a 180 on supporting Apache then stabbing them in the back.

When Sun owned Java, Oracle are documented as supporting Apache's requests to get the FOU restrictions lifted and helped Apache slow the development of Java at the JCP level. When Oracle bought out Sun, they immediately stopped supporting Apache for both FOU and rammed through Java 7 without really getting many of JCP on board. IBM basically folded (after spending so much effort on Harmony - I suspect that IBM are kicking themselves for not buying Sun when they had the chance, I and many other people involved in Java at the time thought it was certain IBM were going to buy Sun out) and most of the other JCP members abstained or quit. Even members who voted for Java 7 added comments to the effect that they were not happy.

This is all in the public record : https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the_asf_resigns_fr...

For more information on the vote of Java 7: http://blog.joda.org/2011/06/java-se-7-passes-in-zombie-jcp_...

And an excellent summary of how the FOU came to be (with pictures): http://blog.joda.org/2009/03/sun-apache-ip-in-pictures_9067....

Ah yes, Oracle's Java people supported Apache but after the merger they were presumably put under JavaSoft who continued the same old policies.