Guys, I don't hate Oracle, far from it, most of our customers about 99% are great and helpful..
I don't understand some business nowadays Scott Ford Senior Systems Engineer www.identityforge.com On May 3, 2012, at 1:48 PM, "McKown, John" <[email protected]> wrote: > Basically, yes. Except that the Android system is not an OS. It is like a JVM > (only not really) in that the OS running on the phone is actually Linux. > Android does not use Java byte code. Java compiles to a "universal" byte code > (instruction set) sequence. The JVM (Java Virtual Machine) interprets the > byte code and executes it (ignoring the JIT compiler in most JVMs and the > weird way that the "i" does it). JVM is "stack based", not "register based". > Development for Android (which is not in the new "native" mode) is done in > Java. This produces a normal Java .class output file. But this cannot be run > directly on Android. There is another program which takes the Java byte code > and converts it to Dalvik byte code. The Dalvik byte code is then loaded onto > the Android system (usually a phone or a tablet at present) and is > interpreted by the Dalvik interpreter on the phone/tablet. > > So what Google has done is implement a system (Android) which has a > subroutine library for use by the Dalvik virtual machine. And this subroutine > library presents the same API as the Java API. Oracle says this is copying. > But, to me, it would be like writing C++ code to create a C++ callable native > library which has functions in it which implement the Java API. It's not > Java. It's not copied source code. It is simply a library with functions in > it that "echo" the functions in the Java system. That is, you could tell the > C++ programmer to just read the Java library documentation (freely viewable > via the Web on an Oracle maintained site) to use you library for C++. And > Oracle says that is a violation of their copyright. > > Or, if you prefer, it would be like having a Java source code to C++ source > code converter and an Java-compatible C++ library which was not licensed by > Oracle. Again, this would, according to Oracle, violate their copyright to > Java. > > I used to be indifferent towards Oracle. I now have yet another vendor that I > despise. And we are in the process of eliminating them due to costs. Or > course the fact that we are converting to MS-SQL Server is not exactly > pleasing to me. Many in the FOSS arena are joking that Google's motto may be > "Never do evil", but Oracle's is "Only do evil". But this was over Sun's > OpenOffice which Oracle acquired with Sun and tried to make proprietary. > OpenOffice has been forked, which is legal because it was GPL licensed by > Sun, and most Linux users have converted to LibreOffice. > > -- > John McKown > Systems Engineer IV > IT > > Administrative Services Group > > HealthMarkets(r) > > 9151 Boulevard 26 * N. Richland Hills * TX 76010 > (817) 255-3225 phone * > [email protected] * www.HealthMarkets.com > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential or > proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, please > contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original > message. HealthMarkets(r) is the brand name for products underwritten and > issued by the insurance subsidiaries of HealthMarkets, Inc. -The Chesapeake > Life Insurance Company(r), Mid-West National Life Insurance Company of > TennesseeSM and The MEGA Life and Health Insurance Company.SM > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott Ford >> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 11:59 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright >> protection, EU court rules >> >> Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this about Google >> imbedding java in their operating system on phones ? >> >> >> Scott Ford >> Senior Systems Engineer >> www.identityforge.com >> >> >> >> On May 3, 2012, at 11:56 AM, Charles Mills <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I always bristle at the use of the word copyright as a verb >> (all of the >>> dictionaries do support the verb form) and try never to use >> it that way >>> myself, although it is easy to slip. >>> >>> Historically, perhaps you could "copyright something," as >> John's Shakespeare >>> perhaps did. >>> >>> Now, in the US and most nations (Berne convention) >> copyright is a noun that >>> inures automatically to authors upon fixing the work in a >> tangible form. >>> >>> You can't copyright (verb) something. You either own the >> copyright (noun) or >>> you do not. The work is copyright (adjective) or it is not. >>> >>> You can (optionally) REGISTER the copyright with the >> Library of Congress, >>> but that's a different matter. >>> >>> Not to argue in the least with the substance of John's post ... >>> >>> Charles >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf >>> Of John Gilmore >>> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 7:17 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: Programming languages can't have copyright >> protection, EU court >>> rules >>> >>> Charles Mills has made the operative distinction very >> clear, but let me try >>> another analogy. >>> >>> Think of yourself, briefly, as Shakespeare. >>> >>> You have written Sonnet XXX, >>> >>> When to the sessions of sweet silent thought I sigh the >> lack of many a thing >>> I sought. >>> >>> Then can I . . . >>> . . . >>> >>> You, Shakespeare, may copyright this sonnet, its specific content. >>> You may not copyright the fourteen-line sonnet form and its >> rhyming scheme. >>> >>> Instances of a schema are copyrightable and protectable. >> The schema itself >>> is not. You may, that is, protect yourself against the >> misappropriation of >>> a sonnet that you write. You may not interdict the writing of >>> [non-duplicative] sonnets by others. >>> >>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >>> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, >> send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN >> >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
