Ellison Doesn't Know If Java Is Free 393
New submitter Emacs.Cmode sends this excerpt from CNet:
"Among the highlights emanating from U.S. District Court in San Francisco courtroom 8 today was Oracle CEO Larry Ellison's response to a question regarding the status of the Java programming language, which his company acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems in 2010. Asked by Google's lead attorney, Robert Van Nest, if the Java language is free, Ellison was slow to respond. Judge William Alsup pushed Ellison to answer with a yes or no. As ZDNet reporter Rachel King observed in the courtroom, Ellison resisted and huffed, 'I don't know.'"
Groklaw has a good write-up about what happened during day one of the trial and a briefer summary of what happened on day two.
Good answer (Score:4, Insightful)
That's probably the best answer he could have given under the circumstances, though I can understand why he was loathe to give it.
Re:Good answer (Score:5, Interesting)
The honest answer would have been, "in some ways yes, in some ways definitely not".
Oracle's courtroom slideshow at the bottom was really damning... as was its purpose. It's pretty clear that Java is meant to be a fucking trap.
And there's no way we're going to get away from it any time soon. Fuck you Oracle. Fuck you twice. :(
Re:Good answer (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Good answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad anybody who was warning us at the time when it could have been avoided was promptly labeled a "Micro$oft Shill"
Re: (Score:3)
Only if said warner was actually a Microsoft proponent, which is a trap of its own.
I was around /. during Java discussions before, during, and after Sun opened it up, and I wouldn't say the push-back from Java proponents was as you claim.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Warned by who?
Robert A. Heinlein.
Re: (Score:3)
Someone should tell the man "Nothing is Free, but you can get a bottomless cup of mud for $1.25 down at the diner."
Re: (Score:3)
I have been successfully avoiding Java for over a decade. It had "trap" written all over it from day one, especially when they were talking about building special-purpose silicon for "fast Java processing", any day now.
Re:Good answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the ambiguity of the word "free", a simple yes/no answer would most likely be incorrect for everything except public domain.
Re:Good answer (Score:5, Interesting)
I've always pondered about yes/no answers in court. I've seen judges demand either a yes or no answer on many occasions, yet to me it seems to conflict with a fundamental principle, at least in the UK justice system.
When you give your oath to the court in the UK it's "I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
I remember being taught in history class of all things that it used to simply be "I promise to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth". The whole truth section was added later to prevent people giving answers that whilst true, only paint half the picture due to missing vital information or context.
So I've often wondered in this context how a judge can push for yes/no, as in many circumstances it betrays this fundamental principle in that either answer only tells a partial truth and not a whole truth. Has this principle ever been tested? To me being forced to give a yes/no answer would mean that I was betraying my vow to tell the whole truth as either answer would only be a partial truth in a more complex situation.
This is one of those circumstances where such an answer would in my opinion, violate such a vow, and as much as I want Oracle to lose I do also sympathise with the difficulty of just answering yes/no to that particular question.
Re:Good answer (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good answer (Score:5, Insightful)
I've always pondered about yes/no answers in court. I've seen judges demand either a yes or no answer on many occasions, yet to me it seems to conflict with a fundamental principle, at least in the UK justice system.
When you give your oath to the court in the UK it's "I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".
I remember being taught in history class of all things that it used to simply be "I promise to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth". The whole truth section was added later to prevent people giving answers that whilst true, only paint half the picture due to missing vital information or context.
So I've often wondered in this context how a judge can push for yes/no, as in many circumstances it betrays this fundamental principle in that either answer only tells a partial truth and not a whole truth. Has this principle ever been tested? To me being forced to give a yes/no answer would mean that I was betraying my vow to tell the whole truth as either answer would only be a partial truth in a more complex situation.
This is one of those circumstances where such an answer would in my opinion, violate such a vow, and as much as I want Oracle to lose I do also sympathise with the difficulty of just answering yes/no to that particular question.
You can also not answer the question "Did you stop beating your wife?" with Yes/No. Also, there are plenty of questions where the answer is between Yes and No.
Re: (Score:3)
You can also not answer the question "Did you stop beating your wife?" with Yes/No.
Nonsense, Yes and No are the only valid answers to that question. It may not be an appropriate question but that is orthogonal to what answers are valid.
Also, there are plenty of questions where the answer is between Yes and No.
Possibly, but more likely the question is wrong rather than the answer is not yes or no.
Your second statement proves the parent correct. Just because the question is wrong doesn't mean that it won't be asked in hope of the question going through, unchallenged, and becoming part of the record. Because of this, yes and no are not valid answers to the question. Here is how a yes/no answer would sound.
Yes: I did beat my wife, but I stopped doing so.
No: I still beat my wife on a somewhat regular basis.
I don't think that you want to answer the question either way if your defense is that you NEVER
Re: (Score:3)
Questions of this nature are logical fallacies because there is an implicit assumption of guilt in them.
Re: (Score:3)
ex falso quodlibet
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure quite how this applies here. The premise isn't false, it is asking for a truthiness of "have you stopped beating your wife". Most people assume that there was a start to the wife beating, but that is not the case in the actual question. If we don't make the assumption that wife beating has started, then the answer is clearly "no". The answer is also "no" if the wife beatings have started and never have stopped. The CONCLUSION of "Well you see, Bill still beats his wife" is a false conclusion based
Re:down the road (Score:3)
Trying for both a +1 Funny and +1 Underrated, here goes!
I just realized that Corporations are "People" that can buy other "People".
So does Oracle Beat its concubine wife Sun?
Topic Change Alert:
This is in some ways some of the most exciting times for law, (even if some of it is abused horribly), simply because you just didn't cases like some of the modern ones Back In The Day when Law Was Law.
Beautiful Quote: Judge Alsup: "...no Googling the case, although I probably shouldn't use that term here."
Elliptical
Re:Good answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes it hard for Oracle to make a compelling case that it is non-free if the man ultimately in charge of deciding doesn't know. They may well still make a compelling case, but even if they do, this admission will impact what they can claim in damages. (Google can legitimately claim that if Oracle doesn't know what it owns, Google cannot be wholly responsible for not knowing either.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sun v. Microsoft is Irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
Oracle would like to enforce a copyright claim on a programming language. Sun v. Microsoft was a trademark dispute.
Oracle is not claiming that Google has used the Java trademarks. This phase of the trial will only examine whether Google has violated Oracle's copyrights, and there will be no examination of trademarks in any phase.
Neither party seems to want to directly examine the question of whether programming languages or APIs can be copyrighted, which I find confusing. Oracle's stance on this issue is obvious, but Google's arguments are a little more interesting:
Google expects the following 3 findings to be reached:
1) there was no copyright infringement; the language is free and the APIs are necessary to use it.
2) Sun approved its use.
3) Android is a fair use of the Java APIs.
I take from this that Google is arguing that programming languages may be copyrighted, but that Java was released under an open source license which Google is complying with. Point #2 seems very difficult to dispute; even Mr. One Rich Asshole has been very complimentary of Google's efforts with Java/Android.
With regard to the linux kernel, which has zero to do with this lawsuit, Google has operated with respect to the law and the GPL; they have released the source for every binary they've distributed, and they are actively trying to merge their code with the upstream project. RMS is an idealist, and many F/OSS advocates support him in principle; you could call him the conscience of computing. However, it is recognized by all but the fanatically religious that pure ideologies function only in an ideal world, which we are not fortunate enough to live in.
Today, we recognize that Oracle is a threat to free computing. Tomorrow we may take up the issue of free data with Google -- I sincerely doubt that meaningful digital privacy is possible, in practice if not in theory.
Re:Good answer (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good answer (Score:4, Informative)
It pains me to say it, but he's no idiot...
No, he's not. And I know a lot of technies who have a weak grasp of copyright and licensing, despite the fact that some of them think they know about it. This is why companies have lawyers.
No one knows for sure anymore. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No one knows for sure anymore. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No one knows for sure anymore. (Score:5, Interesting)
According to Groklaw, Google's lawyer was kind enough to show Mr.Ellison a tape of his deposition where he answered the same questions "That's correct." Alzheimer's perhaps?
Re:No one knows for sure anymore. (Score:5, Interesting)
Java is a bit of a special animal. Sun conceived and promoted it as a community resource, but with a "branding" committee to ensure compatibility across deployments (one of THE primary goals of the Java ecosystem.)
I've never heard of anyone being charged for a Java runtime or compiler, so in the sense of beer, it's free.
But in terms of theoretical software freedom ala GPL? No, it's not free -- it's managed by the consortium.
I'm ok with that, even from the theoretical perspective. Because when the primary goal is portability, there has to be a steward of some sort to test compatibility and ensure portability.
That said, Oracle seems to be determined to try to seize the product line back as a proprietary thing, and I don't believe that's going to work. Even if they prove they have the necessary copyright/patent control in court, there are a lot of OTHER companies who contributed THEIR patents and copyrights to the Java framework, such as HP's patents on springs-and-struts layout managers that are used by the GUI framework.
Personally I believe Oracle is pushing the question of copyright on Java as a means of getting it clarified by the courts that languages are not copyrightable, rather than in any actual hope of winning such a claim. Because if they win such a claim, they're immediately subject to the copyrights of the C/C++ like syntax from which Java derives, and would effectively kill Java completely. Oracle and the rest of the consortium members won't want that, so it has to be a case of "we want to make sure no one ever tries to copyright a language again."
Re:No one knows for sure anymore. (Score:4, Insightful)
Just to clarify: Although Java is technically free because it was released under the GPL, it's not free because in practice all the enhancements and changes to the core code and syntax come through the management and control of the consortium. So although you can make your own changes to the GPL code, I don't know of any way to get those changes upstream without going through the feature committees.
Re:No one knows for sure anymore. (Score:5, Insightful)
At any rate, the question according to not-tfa (which confuses GPL with public domain), the question wasn't the ambiguous "is java free?" but "anyone can use the JPL (java programming language) without paying royalties, yes?" which he had previously answered "Correct" in the deposition, and on the stand he tried to be evasive.
The problem is that Oracle is saying that although the code is GPL, the API is proprietary, so by writing code while referencing the API Google has violated copyright and needs a license for all of their code. (They also have mostly-invalidated patent claims, to be settled later). Suing over patents and suing over the API mean its a very legit question to ask if ANYBODY can use Java without being sued by Oracle, and Oracle WILL NOT SAY.
Re:No one knows for sure anymore. (Score:4, Interesting)
The problem is that Oracle is saying that although the code is GPL, the API is proprietary, so by writing code while referencing the API Google has violated copyright and needs a license for all of their code.
The interesting thing is that if Oracle won this argument, one could presumably argue that Oracle's database on Linux is dependent upon the Linux kernel API, and hence must fall under the GPL.
Free? (Score:5, Interesting)
What, precisely, does it mean if you say a programming language is free?
Re:Free? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, in context:
This is apparently significant because in his deposition, he answered those questions with "That's correct"....
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
Google: Anyone can use the JPL without paying royalties, yes?
Ellison: Not sure.
The correct answer is, "of course they can, it was released under the GPLv2 [slashdot.org] which says, in part:
But ... and I think this is the rub of the case - even though anybody can use Java freely through the GPL, it's not known that Google went that route, probably to avoid having to make Android redistributable (even though it often is anyway). At least I haven't seen Google claim that Davlik etc. are derivavtive works of the GPLv2 release of Java.
So, the ability to keep Android closed when they want to must be worth more to Google than whatever they might eventually have to pay to Oracle.
Re:Free? (Score:5, Informative)
Java as GPL was unvailable at the time Google developed dalvik. Sun freed the code later.
Re:Free? (Score:4, Informative)
Java as GPL was unvailable at the time Google developed dalvik. Sun freed the code later.
That's true as of 2005, but they could have forked and merged any time after Nov. 2006, even if they didn't keep a tremendous amount of the original OpenJDK code (IIRC having some of the headers is part of the current argument).
They'd just have to re-license the Android, Inc. code under GPL and then merge it.
I suppose Oracle could have still gone after them for pre-2006 'violations' but I think it would be hard to prove much in the way of damages from that time period.
Re:Free? (Score:5, Informative)
From what I gather this is Oracle's beef:
If you want to call your runtime virtual machine that you wrote 'Java' you must pass the TCK and purchase a Java commercial license. Ellison is pissed because Google didn't do that. Google wrote their own runtime virtual machine and they didn't call it Java so they wouldn't need the license to use the trademark 'Java'. Google can thumb their noses at Oracle because there are no restrictions on using the Java programming language and compilers, there are only restrictions on the runtime envirnoment.
At this point, what can Oracle do to extract money from Google? Well it appears they are trying to put restrictions on realistic uses of the Java programming language by claiming that you can't use the Java APIs without Oracle's permission because they are copyrighted. Now, historically the courts have ruled that APIs are not copyrightable so Oracle is tapdancing around with the arrangement and grouping of APIs being special. It also looks like Oracle is going to try to go after Google for the comments in the header files as infringing on Oracle's copywritten Java specifications.
Oracle has a really weak hand and they know it, but they also have good lawyers. It'll be interesting to see of they can confuse the Java Language, APIs and specifications in the minds of the jurors and convince them that Google did something wrong.
Re:Free? (Score:5, Interesting)
The language was not released under the GPL--a particular implementation of the compiler and VM was released under the GPL. The language is an abstract thing that happens to have multiple implementations of varying quality (Kaffe, gcj, etc., etc.). Sun's implementation is the only one that can use the trademarked name "java" (so far), but it's not the only implementation of the language.
Note that Oracle has been trying to confuse the distinction between Java-the-abstract-language and Java-the-virtual-machine since they started this case. This reminds me of the way that SCO tried to confuse the distinction between UNIX, SYSV and Unixware in their case. Of course, the fact that Oracle is using the same lawyers as SCO did may be related....
Re: (Score:3)
Note that while a language cannot be subject to copyright, it can be subject to patents.
Re: (Score:3)
Because English native speakers are not very good with Icelandic names.
Re:Free? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Free? (Score:4, Insightful)
What a bunch of bullcrap. Oracle is not a person. The person who started the lawsuit should testify. That would be ... Larry Ellison. Yes, that is why he is testifying. If he doesn't know, he should not have sued.
Re: (Score:3)
What a bunch of bullcrap. Oracle is not a person. The person who started the lawsuit should testify. That would be ... Larry Ellison. Yes, that is why he is testifying. If he doesn't know, he should not have sued.
On top of that, he IS the CEO of the company. He should have been prepped prior to testifying to expect this question, especially since it appeared in deposition (aka, Google's interested in making sure the answer is in the court records).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What a bunch of bullcrap. Oracle is not a person.
Corporations are people my friend...
-- Mitt Romney
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
As the chief executive officer, chairman of the board, and largest voting shareholder he most definitely filed the lawsuit. No one at Oracle would wipe their ass unless he approved.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that why CEOs get such massively bloated compensation? Because they are supposed to be in charge of everything? I could've said "I don't know" too and I'll be happy to say it for only 10% of what Larry gets.
I bet if one of his underlings said that to him he'd drive his boot up his ass and show him the door.
Re: (Score:3)
10% of what he gets would be $0.10 a year, since he's paid $1 :)
He doesn't give a crap about salary any more, he owns almost 25% of Oracle's stock. He makes over $1B for every $1 the stock goes up. ORCL was up $0.65 today. Cha-ching, that's $700M for Larry. Kind of depressing, really...
Re: (Score:3)
IIRC there was a story a few years back that Larry had bought a new, smaller boat because it was too difficult to find places to park the old one in some countries.
Re:Free? (Score:4, Funny)
IIRC there was a story a few years back that Larry had bought a new, smaller boat because it was too difficult to find places to park the old one in some countries.
Well, he should just buy bigger countries.
Re:Free? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
[...] Ellison failing to have an answer offhand to a technical question is not a failing. [...]
It is when the whole bloody lawsuit - or what is left of it - rests on just this one question.
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't he supposed to know? Isn't that supposedly the reason CEOs get paid the big bucks?
Perhaps more to the point, if he is the CEO of Oracle, and even knowing he will be going to court to testify on an issue of Java licensing but he doesn't know what is licensed, isn't that a really strong argument that a 2nd party's infringement (if any) was unintentional? Is Google (or anyone else) really supposed to understand the Java licensing better than the CEO of Oracle?
In fact, I suspect he didn't want to say it was free because that sounded a bit damning for Oracle's claims, but didn't want to say it's non-free since he couldn't back tyhat up and it would be damning for Oracle's efforts to get Java everywhere and in everything, so he went with a variant on the Steve Martin defense.
Re:Free? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a "little detail". It's a fundamental characteristic of Java, which "was a major reason why Oracle acquired Sun" [sic].
If he didn't know that before spending $5.6 billion to acquire it, he's nothing short of incompetent. Of course, we all know he far from that.
Re:Free? (Score:5, Interesting)
What, precisely, does it mean if you say a programming language is free?
as in beer
Is there really any other definition?
a) You can use programs written in the language without anyone expecting you to pay them.
b) You can write programs in the language without anyone expecting you to pay them.
c) You can write a compiler for the language without anyone expecting you to pay them.
d) You can use the source code for someone else's compiler without anyone expecting you to pay them.
e) You can modify the language definition without anyone expecting you to pay them.
f) You can use the name of the language without anyone expecting you to pay them.
g) You can make conformance/compatibility claims about your compiler for the language without anyone expecting you to pay them.
[...]
z) Some combination of the above.
Not surprised (Score:4, Interesting)
Just another rich out of touch moron who doesn't know anything about his company...
Re:Not surprised (Score:4, Interesting)
Just another rich out of touch moron who doesn't know anything about his company...
Not that I necessarily disagree with you, but I challenge you to answer the question accurately and while under oath. Remember we're looking for a "Yes" or "No" answer here...because all software licenses/patents/agreements are that black and white of course...
Oracles own lawyers would have likely given this answer. Only difference is they've had years of practice saying it in various ways, all of which don't sound near as stupid as "I don't know".
Tehn he should have asked them (Score:5, Insightful)
Court cases are not a giant free for all. Read up on deposition. Google asked this question before the live trial AND it was answered by Elison as bing correct, java is free. He knew the question was coming because Google lawyers told him well inn advance that it would and he submited his answer in writing. Now in court he suddenky doesnt know? How gullible are you?
Elison is a dinosaur who just hates google for not using oracle databases. Google was smart enough to stay away fro, that steaming pile of crap. If only they had been smart enough to stay away from Java. Ms and Apple were.
Re:Because non-java iOS suffers from a lack of dev (Score:5, Insightful)
If you look at what you have to program in to make an iOS app (Objective C), I am pretty happy with Google's choice.
Re: (Score:3)
Ellison was not exactly blindsided by this lawsuit. Nor was he blindsided by his day in court. I would expect him, as the Big Cheese, to be briefed on this ahead of time because, well, he's the goddamn Big Cheese.
So, under normal circumstances, if you pulled Ellison off the street and asked "Is the JPL free?" I would expect an "I don't know."
However, when your calendar says, "Lay smack down on Google in court today!!" I'd expect you to have crammed the weeks prior.
Also, we're not looking for a yes/no answ
Re: (Score:3)
Java is GPLd. It's free. There is no ambiguity.
Re:Not surprised (Score:4, Interesting)
OR a CEO on the stand being asked a question that's difficult to answer based on *purely* legal matters.
Is Java "open"? I don't even know if Oracle's lawyers know the specific answer to that question, because what is open? In a PURELY legal stand point, is open about source distribution? Is open about the licensing? Is it about the JDK APIs? What IS open?
that's a question Larry Ellison would've also tanked on too, I'd bet.
Let's be fair (Score:4, Funny)
Let's be fair here, Ellison isn't a rich out of touch moron, he just hasn't caught up on work lately because he's too busy working on his yacht racing. And it's an uphill battle. He even had to pay another team to race against him [sfist.com] in a race that he's paying for. [reuters.com]
Larry Ellison and Tim Geithner walk into a bar... (Score:4, Funny)
"This martini is great," rave Larry and Timmy, "what's your secret?"
"I dunno, the bartender went out to get some cigarettes, I'm just the owner."
MAD. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think this lawsuit is going to be good for anyone but Apple.
Google might get a huge kick in the junk over Dalvik, Oracle might get a huge kick in the junk over whether or not Java is even an open platform or not, and the only ones who look to gain are Apple and maybe Microsoft.
Re:MAD. (Score:5, Funny)
Google might get a huge kick in the garbage over Dalvik, Oracle might get a huge kick in the refuse over whether or not...
That doesn't sound any better.
Of course the language itself is free. (Score:5, Interesting)
A language is nothing but a listing of words and how they are used. It is a cataloging of facts.
Facts, as such, are not copyrightable. You can't copyright the listings in a phone book, and neither can you copyright the contents of a header file. Because there is no creative content, and as far as the US is concerned, "sweat of the brow" does not give you copyright.
This is why Oracle is not going after IBM for Iced Tea, because Oracle they know they have nothing and are afraid of what the Nazgul might do in retaliation.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Java might be free, but the patents used to implement the JVM may not be.
It's why Microsoft licenses the patents in question from Sun/Oracle even though they don't do Java anymore. They license it for their .NET CLR.
Now, Sun back then gave anyone with a compatible J2SE implementation (and probably J2EE) a license to the patents for free (because you can't implement a JVM without them).
However, they didn't extend this to J2ME, and reaped tons of money off of licensing for cellphones, blu-ray players, e
Re: (Score:3)
You are correct, but it also means that those patents have to be valid.
Just because someone pays for a license fee doesn't mean the patent was valid in the first place. Remember that Microsoft and Sun both gave piles of money to SCO for "SCO Source licenses" when they already had licenses paid for in perpetuity (this was just a fig-leaf for champerty).
--
BMO
Re: (Score:3)
Not that I want to disagree with you on this subject, but there's a difference between a cataloging of unrelated information and information which relates to each other.
A language is not "nothing but a listing of words an how they're used", a language is an idea which is described in a specification and/or implementation. That idea satisfies that "minimum amount of creativity" you need in order to copyright something.
Otherwise, a novel would just be a "narration of fictitious characters and things they did
Re:Of course the language itself is free. (Score:5, Informative)
Sigh...
Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991),[1] commonly called Feist v. Rural, is an important United States Supreme Court case establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright. In the case appealed, Feist had copied information from Rural's telephone listings to include in its own, after Rural had refused to license the information. Rural sued for copyright infringement. The Court ruled that information contained in Rural's phone directory was not copyrightable and that therefore no infringement existed.
1991. SCOTUS.
This is a rather famous case and anyone with even a passing familiarity with copyright should have read about this at least once.
Sorry to burst *your* bubble.
--
BMO
Re:Of course the language itself is free. (Score:5, Interesting)
Follow-up
This is also why the astrology book company that was suing the owner of tzdata.dat also had no case and when confronted with ICANN taking over tzdata, they chickened out. Because it's one thing to sue someone who can't afford to even show up in court and another to sue someone who can defend themselves.
--
BMO
Re:Of course the language itself is free. (Score:4, Informative)
Unfortunately for your argument, languages are far from information alone with a minimum of original creativity. They take a lot of thinking, planning, and creative thought in order to come up with a structure for others to work in. I completely disagree with Oracle's position here, but you can't claim that creating a programming language is like listing facts in a telephone directory, it takes a lot more work and creativity than that and it is not created based on merely observing the world but on copying the good bits of other languages (so Oracle is crazy to even go down this path). It's more like creating a font, a dictionary, or recipes, all of which have *elements* which are copyrightable, but are in this same murky grey area, precisely because they are used by so many other people to create other stuff, which makes it of questionable value to society to lock them up with copyright.
The amount of effort requires to come up with a language has nothing to do with what is copyrightable. As a direct analogue, here's the US Copyright Office's page on games. Notice: [copyright.gov]
Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.
I bring up games because the principles are exactly the same. The rulebook which comes with the game, is a written description of the rules. It is *not* the rules, it is a particular expression in literary form, and is therefore subject to copyright. But the actual rules, the principles, mechanics, algorithms and procedures of the game, are mathematical abstractions. They are ideas, not subject to copyright.
A dictionary is not a language. It describes the language. It is an expression which is copyrightable. A grammar book is not language. It is another description, another literary expression, also copyrightable. Language is abstract. It is a set of rules, and rules are not copyrightable. The _description_ of the rules is copyrightable. In the same vein, the API specification document is copyrightable. The API itself is not. This is an important distinction that most people fail to make.
If Google, for example, were to reproduce Java's API documentation verbatim and distribute it with the Android SDK, they would be in violation of copyright. But if anyone merely read the API and re-implemented the language based on the described rules, they wouldn't be violating any copyright. They may have copied the ideas, but ideas cannot be copyrighted.
Re:Of course the language itself is free. (Score:4, Interesting)
So you agree with SCO that anyone who uses Linux should be sued for violating the UNIX copyrights?
Dalvik has no more to do with Java than Linux does with Unix.
(And note that Oracle is using the same lawyers that SCO did.)
Re: (Score:3)
Aren't the locations and names of streets just facts?
Yes, and they are not copyrightable.
The *presentation* is copyrighted. The fact that you can't tell the difference between presentation and mere facts is telling.
--
BMO
no, we payed $7.4 billion for it! (Score:2)
And I'll be god damned if we're not going to make that money back! The world owes us big time!
It's actually because... (Score:5, Funny)
It's actually because Larry couldn't understand the word "free" in the context of an Oracle product.
WWSD? (Score:5, Funny)
What would Stallman testify to?
"You see, when we say 'Free', we mean not just free as in cost, but Free as in Freedom, or as we sometimes say, 'libre software'. This means that software which does not place restrictions on the develope-"
"Yes or no, Mr. Stallman?"
"Well, your honor, to be Free Software means that one follows the guidelines of the Free Software Foundation-"
"Yes or no, Mr. Stallman?"
"To be technically be Free, Java would have to-"
"Yes or no, Mr. Stallman?"
"I'd just like to interject for a mo-"
"The court finds the witness to be guilty... I don't know how, but he is somehow."
Re: (Score:3)
Good one!
I remembered this conference in Belfast years ago; when an Oracle executive got grilled for describing some products as 'free'....
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8941 [linuxjournal.com]
"Owen Hughes, of Oracle, managed not to fall afoul of Stallman. Instead, Hughes angered the entire audience. Working from a
slick presentation that was more "sales pitch" than "technical
information", Hughes referred to numerous Oracle products that are
"free". For each product, the standard pitch was, "I've us
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not a fan of Oracle, but it's actually Owen Hughes who was using the word 'free' the right way - the way it's understood in English. Stallman's redefinition of the word is completely warped, and so was Bruce Perens' advice in this case.
The correct question to him should have been, 'Is it open-source?' I know, that's not what Stallman is interested in, since it doesn't feed his agenda. But such a question would have enabled Hughes to give a direct answer. The heckler who said 'Don't use the word 'f
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, dictionaries will have all the meanings. That has nothing to do w/ how a word is understood, when used in daily conversations. More often than not, when one is talking about getting something free, one is usually talking about price, and only when one is talking about things like prisoners or slaves does a different usage of 'free' get implied.
Most people - if you ask them what they understand by 'free software' - will tell you 'software whose price tag is $0.00.' What Stallman calls 'gratis' (li
Re: (Score:3)
No, but if when presenting they say, "This would work in theory..." people don't yell at them from the crowd because they're using the popular definition of the word in a way that was clear and unmistakable.
When you say, as Hughes did, "Download it for free..." then its obvious in context that he means gratis. You could argue the point if he'd said "Download this free software from" ... but he didn't.
Context. Its important. Without it we cannot communicate, and open communication is vital to society.
And
Re: (Score:3)
Free people implies people who are independent, or have certain freedoms. Free speech always means the freedom to speak one's mind, but rarely, if ever, means delivering an address somewhere w/o getting paid for it. Free beer always means getting a can of beer w/o having to pay for it - it almost never means freedom to drink beer.
Free software similarly means getting software while paying $0.00 for it. Using the alternate definitions, it may also mean the freedom to freely copy and distribute it. Howe
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually since most of what he does these days is bitch and moan, I can't say that "we like him for what he does" is entirely accurate either. The GNU/Linux farce is just another example of him desperately trying to remain relevant and another in a long line of embarrassments on his part.
What has Stallman done in the past five years that's of any significance? I'm sure you'll blabber about GPLv3 but if you'll note the community response to that, it's become more divisive than the GPLv2 ever was. If Stallman
Re:WWSD? (Score:4, Insightful)
What has Stallman done in the past five years that's of any significance?
More than you, Mr AC.
Re:WWSD? (Score:5, Interesting)
If Stallman were really that interested in freedom he'd go with the BSD license, since that actually offers, you know, the most freedom. GPLv3 is all about Stallman's ego and his personal, anti-corporate agenda, not about free software.
The GPL (in its various versions) and the BSD license emphasize different parts of freedom. GPL is particularly about the freedom of those upstream, and the BSD license is particularly about the freedom of those downstream. Unfortunately, it's not possible to maximize both of those at the same time as they're somewhat antagonistic; some things that a downstream participant (a consumer of the licensed code) might want to do will reduce the power of the upstream participant (a producer of the licensed code). A case in point is where the code in question is used as a component (despite not being originally intended as such) and resold as part of a larger product; the freedom for the downstream actor to do that is much more extensively curtailed by the GPL than by the BSD license.
This is really a philosophical difference — you can't reconcile them, and it's really about a statement of values — and it is often counterweighted by a community that uses "soft power" to encourage the other sorts of freedom; patches still flow upstream in BSD-based communities, people still build products in GPL-based communities.
Ellison not prepared? WTF? (Score:3)
If the core of the lawsuit is over the free parts of Java, are you telling me Ellison was not even prepped enough to answer that question? Who will get fired over that I wonder?
Re:This is legal, not "stupid CEO" (Score:4, Informative)
No, this is not about patents. The arguments on patents come later. The patent arguments, when they start, have been trimmed down to one patent that has been ruled invalid, but the time period to appeal that rejection has not yet expired; and another that has had its scope trimmed back, which, together with some admissions made by Oracle, Google argues, clears Android of infringement.
At the moment, this is only about copyrights. Oracle claims that, when they Sun released documentation about the APIs used in Java, the copyright on them prevents anyone else making a clean-room alternate implementation of them. Oh, and that GPLing it all, congratulating Google for implementing those APIs, and publicly assisting Harmony and GNU Classpath( both alternate clean-room implementations ) doesn't affect that at all. The rest of us are just shaking our heads and wondering if they will ever reveal the directions to the universe where this might be the case.
Google anti-open source. (Score:5, Interesting)
A Google engineer, Tim Lindholm, said in a February 2006 e- mail that the company was in negotiations for a Java license. Google didn’t agree to the terms of a type of license that allows companies to use Java code and write new code on top of it which “you have to give back to the open-source community,” Jacobs said.
“You can’t keep it for yourself,” the Oracle lawyer said. “They broke the basic rules of the Java programming community.”
So I don't get why the open source crowd is all pro Google on this.
Re:Yah You Know, CEOs (Score:5, Informative)
They pay them billions of dollars to look pretty and play golf. Ellison's the prettiest. And he smells like pie. If they really wanted to know anything about Java, they should have asked an Oracle employee who makes a immeasurably miniscule fraction of Ellison's salary.
Actually, Ellison's annual salary is 1$, no joke. He is paid in stock to avoid income taxes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, Ellison's annual salary is 1$, no joke. He is paid in stock to avoid income taxes.
Does he have to pay tax when he cashes in the stock?
If so, how does he come out ahead?
(And if no, why isn't he covered with tar and feathers.)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Capital gains tax is 15%. Thus all the controversy with Warren Buffet/Mitt Romney/et al paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries.
Re:Yah You Know, CEOs (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, let's go there.
If you sell the stock less than 12 months after exercising the stock option, you pay regular income taxes.
If you sell the stock 12 months after exercising the option, you pay 15%.
http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/taxes-on-nonqualified-stock-options-9304/ [smartmoney.com]
http://www.smartmoney.com/personal-finance/taxes/taxes-on-incentive-stock-options-12196/ [smartmoney.com]
Re:Yah You Know, CEOs (Score:5, Informative)
For one thing, you don't have to sell stock to use it. You can borrow against its value and, if you have enough, can essentially do so indefinitely.
It's also taxed at capital gains rates if it's sold, which are much lower than standard income tax rates (15% maximum under US law currently for investments held for at least a year). Capital gains can also be offset by tax losses, which can carry forward forever, or through structured sales.
Re:When you don't gratuate high school taxes all s (Score:5, Informative)
You have no idea what you are talking about. Capital gains is obviously a form of income tax. So are dividends, gambling winnings, rental properties, etc. They are not all taxed at the same rate, but that's totally irrelevant.
Everything you put on your 1040 is a form of "income tax". That's why it's official name is "Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return". There really isn't even any debate on it, the IRS clearly states capital gains are part of your income tax.
Re:Yah You Know, CEOs (Score:5, Interesting)
Stock compensation will require an immediate tax payment ONLY if it is without conditions. If, for example, the company granting the stock to you puts a two year period in which you must maintain employment before you can sell the stock then you can avoid immediate payment of taxes and it gives you time to take advantage of some benefits (though it gets pretty hairy from that point trying to claim value reductions or reduced value for the limitation of liquidity).
In response to your other comment about being able to take a like amount of cash and buy the stock at fair-market value to achieve the same tax rate that is not true because you would expose yourself to double taxation (which is the reason most people put a before-tax investment into their 401k). If you received a million dollars in cash you would end up paying your income taxes on that amount and then capital gains taxes on the stock as well.
As a side note, if a company is trying to reduce tax liability themselves they can compensate employees in stock, treat it as an expense akin to cash payouts, and reduce their overall burden. Corporations always win on matters like that.
One of the real brilliant things these billionaires do is, after covering basic taxes, not sell the stock at all. If you don't sell it you avoid tax consequences. Larry Ellison "borrowed" against the value of his stock to buy his giant yacht and doesn't pay a dime in taxes. If he keeps them for his whole life he can pass them to his heirs and the income tax will never have been paid (heirs only pay a tax on appreciation of value since the death of the owner, often a fraction of the true value of the stock).
-Not To Be Taken As Professional Advice, Consult A CPA/Lawyer before making any decisions.-
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you ever in your life posted a comment worth reading?
Re:Blu ray (Score:5, Informative)
Blue Ray players license Oracle's JVM. That's reasonable, Oracle/Sun wrote that. Google wrote their own VM from scratch that doesn't work anything like Oracle's JVM. The only thing it has in common is: a bunch of APIs and nine lines of code (added by accident and long since removed). That's it. That's the basis of Oracle's infringement claims.
APIs have long been held to be uncopyrightable. Oracle is trying to change well-established case law, and if they succeed, it's going to raise a shitstorm, not just with Java users, but throughout the industry!
Re:I don't trust Google any more (Score:5, Insightful)
As the articles on Groklaw themselves comment:
Google couldn't use the name Java. So "scrub the J-word" is hardly damning evidence of wanton infringement. In fact, it's their only legal option. Sun basically said that anyone could use the code so long as they DIDN'T call it Java. It's like the IceWeasel / Firefox thing. They have no choice. So not illegal, and not really immoral.
Of course they were circumventing the need to have a Java ME license. That's not the issue, and not illegal. The question is, did they circumvent it properly, or did they get caught on the snags of not doing a proper job of it (i.e. can ANYONE make something Java-like or even use Java code without stepping on things that are IMPOSSIBLE to work around?). This is within the realm of reverse-engineering and IP-skirting. You don't want to pay for their patents, so you work to AVOID them instead. Again, hardly illegal or even immoral.
The GPL thing? They didn't want to use GPL code. Simple as that. Nor do quite a few huge companies. That's their choice. And rather than that just plain infringe GPL code or get the GPL taken down in a court. Again - they didn't want to do something, their only legal avenue was to find an alternative and work around the problem. They can licence their own code under whatever license they want and they can start from ANY licence or licenced code that they choose as a basis to start from. Not illegal, not immoral.
Now, if it were Microsoft? I think they'd avoid the GPL like a plague too. Google didn't make up their own "open" licence though, that's basically useless for anyone trying to contribute, which Microsoft have in the past. And MS have DEFINITELY avoided using certain trademarked names (and tried to enforce trademarks on things like Windows in the past, etc.) and DEFINITELY worked around patents that others owned rather than licence them (their Office suite comes to mind).
The question really is, where's your bias come from?
Re:I don't trust Google any more (Score:4, Interesting)
Sun basically said that anyone could use the code so long as they DIDN'T call it Java. It's like the IceWeasel / Firefox thing. They have no choice. So not illegal, and not really immoral.
You have to decide. Either they could not use the Java name, and in this case they are MASSIVELY infringing, as their code / documentation / web sites contain thousands of times the word "Java", including the Android frontpage [android.com], or they can use it, and your justification of Google's sneaky behaviour does not hold.
Of course they were circumventing the need to have a Java ME license. That's not the issue, and not illegal. The question is, did they circumvent it properly, or did they get caught on the snags of not doing a proper job of it (i.e. can ANYONE make something Java-like or even use Java code without stepping on things that are IMPOSSIBLE to work around?). This is within the realm of reverse-engineering and IP-skirting. You don't want to pay for their patents, so you work to AVOID them instead. Again, hardly illegal or even immoral.
The fact is, that they knew they needed a Java ME license (Java SE didn't have licensing problems, but it wasn't technically appetible for them). Java ME's licensing model is of course designed to be impossible to work around, as the company that created it had this crazy aspiration to make money out of it. And Google decided NOT to pay for the license. "Immoral" does not belong to my vocabulary; a judge will decide if this is illegal.
The GPL thing? They didn't want to use GPL code. Simple as that. Nor do quite a few huge companies. That's their choice. And rather than that just plain infringe GPL code or get the GPL taken down in a court. Again - they didn't want to do something, their only legal avenue was to find an alternative and work around the problem. They can licence their own code under whatever license they want and they can start from ANY licence or licenced code that they choose as a basis to start from. Not illegal, not immoral.
My point never was that Google had to use GPL code or that not using GPL code is illegal, you're creating a magistral straw man argument. The point is that Google, a company that builds for itself an exterior image of an open source supporter, who has made billions by leveraging GPL-licensed code, calls the obligation to release a product's source code "an infection". Just like Microsoft. This is not illegal, by all means, it's just disappointing, hypocritical, or, in Google-speak, "evil".
Now, if it were Microsoft? I think they'd avoid the GPL like a plague too. Google didn't make up their own "open" licence though, that's basically useless for anyone trying to contribute, which Microsoft have in the past. And MS have DEFINITELY avoided using certain trademarked names (and tried to enforce trademarks on things like Windows in the past, etc.) and DEFINITELY worked around patents that others owned rather than licence them (their Office suite comes to mind).
(In your comparison, you forgot getting fined for impeding investigations and for privacy violation.) Are you trying to convince me that Google have become as "evil" as Microsoft? That was the main point of my post, actually.
The question really is, where's your bias come from?
I get called "a shill", "a sockpuppet", "a astroturfer" after almost any post I write on Slashdot. I got accused of being paid, among others, by Apple, Nokia, Sony... and Google. I take it with pride as I think it means that I'm doing something minimally useful to prevent Slashdot from becoming an useless echo chamber. Most people understand what kind of communities accuse the dissenters of being "the enemy".
Re: (Score:3)
Sun basically said that anyone could use the code so long as they DIDN'T call it Java. It's like the IceWeasel / Firefox thing. They have no choice. So not illegal, and not really immoral.
You have to decide. Either they could not use the Java name, and in this case they are MASSIVELY infringing, as their code / documentation / web sites contain thousands of times the word "Java", including the Android frontpage [android.com], or they can use it, and your justification of Google's sneaky behaviour does not hold.
Of course they can use the damn word if they refer to the language that you can write Android programs in. They just can't call their runtime in which they run the compiled programs "Java" or a "JVM". And they don't -- they call it "Dalvik". And they've written it themselves. And that's perfectly legal. Of course you don't have to pay license fees anytime you you the word "Java" in any technical sense. If you want, you can write a Java Framework for controlling a spacecraft or a coffee machine, brag "you ca