Re: back to .Net? lesser of two evils?

On 11/3/2011 1:30 AM, BGB wrote:
On 11/2/2011 3:18 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
On 11/2/2011 6:01 PM, BGB wrote:
On 11/2/2011 2:26 PM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
Second: Google's legal situation would be a lot better if their
Java had actually been a Java (been certified as being a Java SE
implementation after passing the TCK) due to the JCP rules. For
whatever reasons they are not, but I am sure that if Google
could turn back time, then they would have gotten it certified
(adding the standard Java GUI stuff would not cost more than a few
months of legal bills!).

true, but the issue may be that such rules exist in the first place.

in a truly open technology, one is free to use the technology however
they so well please, including the creation of poor / non-conformant
implementations thereof.


And you can do that for Java.

There are just two caveats:
- you can not call it Java
- you are not covered by the patent license/promise
to compliant implementations

fair enough, but this does mean that it is, effectively, not a free or
open technology.


Oracle does not allow usage of the Java trademark and they have not
given away all relevant patents to everybody.

My guess is that if you try and call a compiler for ISO C++ or ANSI C++
while it is not, then you are going to gt problems.

And I am also getting that companies producing C++ compilers has
not given away rights to all patents that could be useful for
C++ compilers.

Third: there is really nothing changed. If you infringe on anyone's
copyright or patents then the court can order you to pay - if you don't
the the court should not do so. It was like that before the Oracle
suit and it is like that after.

yes, this is the case.

however, many people had held the view (mistaken or not) that Java was a
free and open technology, similar to, say, C and C++. however, this
isn't really the case, and the Oracle vs Google lawsuit matter serves to
illustrate this issue.

It is exactly like C or C++.

If you think you can not be sued for copyright or patent infringement
when writing a C or C+ compiler then you are wrong.

Those rules apply to all software. Languages does not matter. Open
source or closed source does not matter.

except that C and C++ are free and open, as per these definitions.

if one doesn't use anyone's source, copyright doesn't apply;
there are no known patents which apply directly to the languages;
no one has the names trademarked;

similarly, any related patents have to be either non-existent free use
for everyone for it to be suitable for ISO's standardization rules
(hence why there can't currently be ISO Java or ISO C#, as for either
case, the owning companies would have to give up claim on any of their
relevant patents. however both C and C++ are ISO standards...).

Nice theory.

But what language do you think ISO 23270 describes?

there is ECMA C#, but this is less safe, and only a small subset of the
language is covered (if one writes a more "complete" implementation, and
re-implements MS's APIs, they may once again be under patent land, which
was sort of a big issue with Mono and similar).


The ECMA (and ISO) standard for C# is the complete language that MS
and Mono has implemented (like MS C# 2.0 matches ECMA 334 4th edition).

say, one can potentially get, say, the FSF pissed off if they use
GCC-derived source code in ways not compatible with the GPL.

however, if one writes the compiler from the ground up based on the
standards, the FSF would have no claim.

And Oracle has not sued those that has implemented Java from the
ground up.

That is how copyright work for all software.