Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Java Apache

Apache Resigns From the JCP Executive Committee 136

Posted by timothy
from the I'll-resign-my-commission dept.
iammichael writes "The Apache Software Foundation has resigned its seat on the Java SE/EE Executive Committee due to a long dispute over the licensing restrictions placed on the TCK (test kit validating third-party Java implementations are compatible with the specification)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apache Resigns From the JCP Executive Committee

Comments Filter:
  • by sticks_us (150624) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @03:08PM (#34505724) Homepage

    We're living in interesting times. It's obvious Oracle isn't going to be cutting people a whole lot of slack, here.

    Maybe we should start taking bets on:

    a) When Oracle starts requiring a per-core license for production JVMs, and
    b) How many $$ per core that will be?

    This might play into their strategy. We know they're putting some heat on Google, but maybe a move like this would buy them some leverage, say, against Salesforce.com (with whom they're engaged in an emerging, but heated battle [cnet.com])

  • by Delirium Tremens (214596) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @03:24PM (#34505978) Journal
    It means that Oracle controls Java on embedded devices. Google can not take Harmony and have it run its Java apps in the next Android OS. Instead, Google has to say Pretty Please to Oracle first, and then buy the binary or source code license from them.
  • by mswhippingboy (754599) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @03:30PM (#34506046)
    For Java, it means what has been speculated all along has now been confirmed, that Java is NOT an open standard and is in fact controlled by one company, Oracle. This was of course, the same situation while under the control of Sun, but Sun was a bit less "evil" in that they did not enforce the restrictions. Not surprisingly, Oracle is a different beast. It's too early to tell what the long term implications will be, but a lot has to do with the outcome of the Oracle/Google case.

    This of course, brings us to Android. Depending on the outcome of the Oracle/Google legal maneuvering, Android could be killed off (or retooled to remove Harmony from the equation), or Oracle's restrictions and/or patents could be vacated. Most likely the result will be something in between, where Android lives on, but is subject to the indirect control of Oracle. Of course, the IDEAL situation (the one I'm rooting for) is that Google wins. This would, in effect free Java from Oracle's greedy control and allow Android to develop into the truly remarkable platform it has the potential to become.

    (Disclaimer: IANAL nor a tech analyst and I have no particular insight, other than I tend to follow this story, so my views are my own as a simple small time developer).
  • Re:Background (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mysidia (191772) on Thursday December 09, 2010 @06:04PM (#34508000)

    Oracle is not bound by the terms of the GPL since they hold there copyright to the entire source. So, I'm not sure why people think that theGPL gives then any patent protection from Oracle.

    Because the GPL'd work was created/distributed by the patent holder. When you distribute a product that contains a patented element, you cannot sue your own customer that you distributed the item to.

    When you give your customer your product, and as patent holder you give them a license (the GPL) that allows them to distribute it freely, modify, and redistribute freely, you do not enumerate which exclusive rights you are licensing. Because the GPL does not provide for listing the specific exclusive protections licensed, it only lists general rights granted by the licensor to the licensee.

    There is nothing in the GPL which states that ONLY copyrights are licensed.

    Some people might assume that the GPL only licenses exclusive rights provided by copyright law; however, there is nothing in the GPL that actually states which kinds of rights are licensed.

    One could imply, that the GPL as an agreement confers all license required by the grantor to the grantee, in order for the grantee to be able to exercise the rights the grantor claims to grant.

    For example, if you are a bank and rent out a deposit box, and your agreement with your customer states they will have keys for 24/7 access to their safety deposit box.

    That implies you can't sue your customer for "trespass" because security found them in the entrance corridor to the room with their box at 10pm one night.

Dead? No excuse for laying off work.

Working...