Google's Opening Statement - Language is free

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/04/google-opening-argument/

by hluska • 14 years ago

67 29 14 years ago

ajross3• 14 years ago

First off, I am clearly in complete agreement with the argument presented.

That said, now that this case is live and in the media, it should be noted that there's a certain deep irony in it. Andy Rubin directed all GPL code (all that was practical, anyway) to be removed from the Android userspace out of fear of IP purity concerns. And in the process of all that forking he did deep harm to the open source community. Not just code was forked, but infrastructure was abandoned: compare the level of robustness and transparency of Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu/OpenSUSE packaging to that of the "I cooked a ROM, download it here!" culture in the android world.

Yet Rubin allowed the use of the developer tools of a clearly proprietary product from another company without batting an eyelash. And no one called him on it. And now they have to have this ridiculous fight. So what was the point of forking Linux again?

mey• 14 years ago

I personally don't care that a company is looking out for it's "best interests"* internally. I am happy that Google is effectively defending the Java community from Oracle (since Oracle doesn't wish to be it's steward.)

* If this move is actually in their best interest, and what best interest IS I have no idea. But it's their perception.

You could check out http://wiki.openmoko.org/wiki/Main_Page Not sure if they are still running these days, but they have the goals you seek in mind.

cdibona2• 14 years ago

I fundamentally disagree that Android did deep harm to open source. That's just absurd.

ajross3• 14 years ago

I said it hurt the community. Your code is open. And much of it is great. But it's not something that can be meaningfully shared.

Again: compare the community work available at Launchpad or rpmfusion or build.opensuse.org (compatible, signed, versioned packages with automated dependency tracking) to "I cooked a ROM doodz!". The far and away best example of community work in the Android world (Cyanogen) is, what, five months behind the core team at even shipping the software that's already in the field? It's depressing.

And what's absolutely infuriating to me (and the point of this rant) is that you started with all that good stuff and threw it out the window chasing some ridiculous notion of IP purity that -- surprise! -- was basically worthless as you're being sued over IP anyway.

starwed• 14 years ago

>compare the level of robustness and transparency of Fedora/Debian/Ubuntu/OpenSUSE packaging to that of the "I cooked a ROM, download it here!" culture in the android world.

I don't really understand what your point is here -- a ROM is an image of the operating system, and as far as I know the situation is the same with mainstream Linux. You typically install a distro by downloading the iso from the web and then running it.

recoiledsnake• 14 years ago

If that is true, does that mean anyone will be free to implement any programming language developed by anyone, regardless of the designers' wishes?

Looks like there be will no monetary incentive in inventing a very innovative languages when the big guys can just come in and re-implement it and not pay a cent.

fluidcruft2• 14 years ago

Someone should ask Wolfram what he thinks about this. ;)

koenigdavidmj• 14 years ago

There is already a trademark-based restriction on the name Java. You can't call your system Java unless it passes the TCK. You can't pass the TCK without signing some sort of license about what your implementation can and can't do.

TeX has the same concept with the TRIP test.

nknight3• 14 years ago

Ignoring the first-to-market incentive (which is substantial), is there any monetary incentive now? Has anyone else ever tried to make a business out of somehow "licensing" a general-purpose programming language minus implementation?

The concept doesn't even make sense. Do you pay someone to let you speak English? Why would you pay someone to let you "speak" any other language?

arihant• 14 years ago

What if I ship a language with implementation but would like to prevent others from implementing it?

Sometimes language implementations are the product - things like R, Matlab and Mathematica are close examples. What if I figured out a much better programming language for Finance software and would like to prevent every other company from implementing it?

This debate is far more complex than what people think.

baddox• 14 years ago

> does that mean anyone will be free to implement any programming language developed by anyone, regardless of the designers' wishes?

Not completely regardless of the designers' wishes. If the language designer never publishes, then he or she won't have to worry about re-implementations. Publishing is by definition (and should be) a relinquishment of some amount of control.

modeless• 14 years ago

"monetary incentive in inventing a very innovative languages"

I will be astonished if you can cite a single example of a programming language whose inventor was inspired by the possibility of language licensing revenue.

Note that implementation licensing revenue does not count, as implementations are covered by copyright.

robomartin• 14 years ago

Isn't this about the implementation of the virtual machine rather than the language itself?

Funny enough, thinking about a project over the last few weeks I found myself wondering if there were any legal restrictions to implementing your own JVM with commercial purposes. I couldn't find any guidance on this at the Oracle site. Maybe the answer to this question will be borne out of this trial?

hartror• 14 years ago

I believe all the implementation patents have been dismissed by the USPTO bar 1/2 of one which is still undergoing review. What is left is Oracle's claim of language copyright which will hopefully get the ruling it deserves.

trentmb• 14 years ago

There was a tribe in Chile that tried to sue Microsoft for supporting their language, not sure what came of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapuche_language#Microsoft_laws...

mattiask3• 14 years ago

Are they arguing that all languages are free or that the Java language specifically was free? If it's the former it seems a little strange. If I tomorrow invented some programming language that for instance described some novel way to handle concurrency, why wouldn't that be protectable? I'm not pro-patents but languages being public domain per default doesn't seem right either

obtu2• 14 years ago

If you are arguing for monopolies on ideas, that makes you pro-patent.

mattiask3• 14 years ago

Aren't all patents ideas? Surely the difference between a patent or not can't be whether the ideas is a physical object or not.

If all patents were abolished tomorrow I wouldn't mind, but as so long as they aren't it seems silly that some things that really demand a high degree of creativity and innovation isn't protected. That kinda seems to be the point of patents, not like coming up with the idea of buying something with 1-click

Google's Opening Statement - Language is free

Related Stories