Java API

[Kermit Kiser]

If you have not already noticed you will soon hear that Oracle has
persuaded a sympathetic US court to declare that the Java API is
copyrighted. What this means to programmers is not clear yet and Google
will likely appeal to a higher court but it leads me to wonder about the
possible impact on languages like NetRexx which make some use of the
Java API. Does anyone have any idea if this could be detrimental to
NetRexx?

I am sure that Google chose to use the Java API and language because
many programmers were familiar with them and could easily learn to
produce Android applications. But at this point, the market share of
Android is huge and those things are not so needed to attract
developers. Programmers will not stop developing for Android even if
they have to switch to another language and API. This leads to an
interesting thought - NetRexx uses the Java language and API but in
theory does not need them. If the translator produced JVM bytecode
and/or Dalvik bytecode directly, it might be a suitable alternate
language for any other API that is developed. In other words, there is a
possible opportunity for expanding the NetRexx user base in some scenarios.

I am just speculating about these things of course but also curious if
anyone else has had any thoughts about this.

-- Kermit

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[rickmcguire]

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Kermit Kiser <[hidden email]> wrote:

If you have not already noticed you will soon hear that Oracle has persuaded a sympathetic US court to declare that the Java API is copyrighted. What this means to programmers is not clear yet and Google will likely appeal to a higher court but it leads me to wonder about the possible impact on languages like NetRexx which make some use of the Java API. Does anyone have any idea if this could be detrimental to NetRexx?

Using the APIs are not a problem.  It is only an issue if netrexx were to provide alternate implementations of those APIs.  

I am sure that Google chose to use the Java API and language because many programmers were familiar with them and could easily learn to produce Android applications. But at this point, the market share of Android is huge and those things are not so needed to attract developers. Programmers will not stop developing for Android even if they have to switch to another language and API. This leads to an interesting thought - NetRexx uses the Java language and API but in theory does not need them. If the translator produced JVM bytecode and/or Dalvik bytecode directly, it might be a suitable alternate language for any other API that is developed. In other words, there is a possible opportunity for expanding the NetRexx user base in some scenarios.

The language is not the issue here.  The APIs are the method signatures of the various class libraries.  

 

I am just speculating about these things of course but also curious if anyone else has had any thoughts about this.

-- Kermit

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[Fernando Cassia-2]

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Kermit Kiser <[hidden email]> wrote:

What this means to programmers is not clear yet and Google will likely appeal to a higher court but it leads me to wonder about the possible impact on languages like NetRexx which make some use of the Java API. Does anyone have any idea if this could be detrimental to NetRexx?

Oracle is one of the organizers of the JVM languages summit.
The rule only means that Google will likely have to pay sooner or later for having used parts of Java in their Dalvik fork without paying.

FC

--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto Revolucionario
- George Orwell

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[Fernando Cassia-2]

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Kermit Kiser <[hidden email]> wrote:

I am sure that Google chose to use the Java API and language because many programmers were familiar with them and could easily learn to produce Android applications.

They simply did an "embrace and extend". Remember Microsoft's "MS Java"? You steal the mind share and programmers base, while destroying the "write once, run anywhere" concept and level playing field that was the J2ME ecosystem.

But then everyone called MSFT on it, but strangely Google got a free pass from the press and pundits.

I'd like to see the tables reversed now and the IcedRobot project restarted, to put an Android compatibility layer that runs atop standard Java, making Android itself irrelevant ;-p

FC


--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto Revolucionario
- George Orwell

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[Fernando Cassia-2]

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:36 PM, Rick McGuire <[hidden email]> wrote:

Using the APIs are not a problem.  It is only an issue if netrexx were to provide alternate implementations of those APIs.  

Interesting to see that this has the benefit of protecting the core Java APIs, going forward, from "embrace and extend" like MSFT tried to do once when it licensed Java from Sun and extended it with their own windows-only APIs.

In any case, here´s a good artlcle from a lawyer, getting in detail about what the courts said or didn´t say...
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/05/oracle-wins-android-java-copyright.html

Lawyers, don´t we all love to hate ´em?. But sadly, sometimes lawyers are needed.

"Can you imagine a world without lawyers?" ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VxpTMAbas
FC


--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto Revolucionario
- George Orwell

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[Kermit Kiser]

I understand what API means. But if Oracle succeeds in restricting the environments where Java can be used, it has also restricted NetRexx (and by extension Rexx since NetRexx is the only version available in some environments). Granted the rumors that Oracle mainly bought Sun to squeeze money out of Google and the phone companies are likely true, it is still a serious problem.

On 5/9/2014 2:36 PM, Rick McGuire wrote:

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Kermit Kiser <[hidden email]> wrote:

If you have not already noticed you will soon hear that Oracle has persuaded a sympathetic US court to declare that the Java API is copyrighted. What this means to programmers is not clear yet and Google will likely appeal to a higher court but it leads me to wonder about the possible impact on languages like NetRexx which make some use of the Java API. Does anyone have any idea if this could be detrimental to NetRexx?

Using the APIs are not a problem.  It is only an issue if netrexx were to provide alternate implementations of those APIs.  

I am sure that Google chose to use the Java API and language because many programmers were familiar with them and could easily learn to produce Android applications. But at this point, the market share of Android is huge and those things are not so needed to attract developers. Programmers will not stop developing for Android even if they have to switch to another language and API. This leads to an interesting thought - NetRexx uses the Java language and API but in theory does not need them. If the translator produced JVM bytecode and/or Dalvik bytecode directly, it might be a suitable alternate language for any other API that is developed. In other words, there is a possible opportunity for expanding the NetRexx user base in some scenarios.

The language is not the issue here.  The APIs are the method signatures of the various class libraries.  

 

I am just speculating about these things of course but also curious if anyone else has had any thoughts about this.

-- Kermit

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[Kermit Kiser]

I have a different viewpoint. In one sense, you could say NetRexx is an "embrace and replace" competitor to Java. But NetRexx is designed to run wherever Java runs, not to limit you to a single environment like MS Java seems to have intended. Likewise, Android actually expands Java usage to a new environment rather than restricting it like MS tried. Having done a bit of Android programming in NetRexx, I can assure you that not much of the Java API is really needed there - it was strictly a "programmer friendly" choice. Not the same thing at all!

And despite how monopolistic Microsoft is, I consider them the "good guys" compared to companies like Apple which goes out of it's way to insure that no version of Rexx will ever run on it's phone or tablet devices!

On 5/9/2014 2:50 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Kermit Kiser <[hidden email]> wrote:

I am sure that Google chose to use the Java API and language because many programmers were familiar with them and could easily learn to produce Android applications.

They simply did an "embrace and extend". Remember Microsoft's "MS Java"? You steal the mind share and programmers base, while destroying the "write once, run anywhere" concept and level playing field that was the J2ME ecosystem.

But then everyone called MSFT on it, but strangely Google got a free pass from the press and pundits.

I'd like to see the tables reversed now and the IcedRobot project restarted, to put an Android compatibility layer that runs atop standard Java, making Android itself irrelevant ;-p

FC


--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto Revolucionario
- George Orwell

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[Fernando Cassia-2]

On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Kermit Kiser <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have a different viewpoint. In one sense, you could say NetRexx is an "embrace and replace" competitor to Java.

No, I beg to disagree. Java is more than a language, Java is three things:
1. A Language
2. A runtime environment
3. A Level playing field software ecosystem

So you can use 2 and 3 without actually typing a single line of Java source code. That´s the beauty of Java.
So NOT A SINGLE JVM language is a ¨competitot to Java¨because they RUN ON JAVA (the JVM) and use (2) and (3) in the example above.

The more JVM Languages, the more the Java platform grows.

Oracle (and Sun before it) only wants to have certain control of the platform, in the sense that it doesn´t degenerate into a minefield of different implementations that crash its ¨write once, run anywhere" philosophy.

If Oracle was against JVM languages they wouldn´t sponsor the JVM languages Summit at the Santa Clara campus, don´t you think?.

Just my $0.02
FC
PS: Yes, Oracle wants to make money too, like IBM and the rest... they´re not a non-profit. And the fact that they´ve made OpenJDK the reference implementation of JDK7 and now JDK8 speaks volumes about the extend they wish to go to please the FOSS crowd, yet at the same time charge money for JDK support and commercial use. The alternative would be to give everything away and lose money, Sun style. And we know how that ended didn´t we?. ;)
--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto Revolucionario
- George Orwell

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[Dave Woodman]

My take is this:-

 

Copyrighting an API no more prevents anyone using it than a copyright on a book prevents you reading it.

 

Taking a copy of the implementation of the API and passing it off as your own is what is prevented.

 

In this case it is alleged that Google copied entire (although small) chunks of code that it then included in Android, and that it did so without first obtaining a license to use.

 

                Dave.

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Kermit Kiser
Sent: 10 May 2014 22:02
To: IBM Netrexx
Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] Java API

 

I have a different viewpoint. In one sense, you could say NetRexx is an "embrace and replace" competitor to Java. But NetRexx is designed to run wherever Java runs, not to limit you to a single environment like MS Java seems to have intended. Likewise, Android actually expands Java usage to a new environment rather than restricting it like MS tried. Having done a bit of Android programming in NetRexx, I can assure you that not much of the Java API is really needed there - it was strictly a "programmer friendly" choice. Not the same thing at all!

And despite how monopolistic Microsoft is, I consider them the "good guys" compared to companies like Apple which goes out of it's way to insure that no version of Rexx will ever run on it's phone or tablet devices!

On 5/9/2014 2:50 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:

 

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Kermit Kiser <[hidden email]> wrote:

I am sure that Google chose to use the Java API and language because many programmers were familiar with them and could easily learn to produce Android applications.

They simply did an "embrace and extend". Remember Microsoft's "MS Java"? You steal the mind share and programmers base, while destroying the "write once, run anywhere" concept and level playing field that was the J2ME ecosystem.

But then everyone called MSFT on it, but strangely Google got a free pass from the press and pundits.

I'd like to see the tables reversed now and the IcedRobot project restarted, to put an Android compatibility layer that runs atop standard Java, making Android itself irrelevant ;-p

FC


--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto Revolucionario
- George Orwell

_______________________________________________

Ibm-netrexx mailing list

[hidden email]

Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

 

---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[David Requena]

De: Dave Woodman

Enviado: domingo, 11 de mayo de 2014 11:19

Para: 'IBM Netrexx'

Responder a: IBM Netrexx

Asunto: Re: [Ib=m-netrexx] Java API

My take is this:-

 

Copyrighting an API no more prevents anyone using it than a copyright on a book prevents you reading it.

 

Taking a copy of the implementation of the API and passing it off as your own is what is prevented.

 

In this case it is alleged that Google copied entire (although small) chunks of code that it then included in Android, and that it did so without first obtaining a license to use.

 

                Dave.

 

From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Kermit Kiser
Sent: 10 May 2014 22:02
To: IBM Netrexx
Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] Java API

 

I have a different viewpoint. In one sense, you could say NetRexx is an "embrace and replace" competitor to Java. But NetRexx is designed to run wherever Java runs, not to limit you to a single environment like MS Java seems to have intended. Likewise, Android actually expands Java usage to a new environment rather than restricting it like MS tried. Having done a bit of Android programming in NetRexx, I can assure you that not much of the Java API is really needed there - it was strictly a "programmer friendly" choice. Not the same thing at all!

And despite how monopolistic Microsoft is, I consider them the "good guys" compared to companies like Apple which goes out of it's way to insure that no version of Rexx will ever run on it's phone or tablet devices!

On 5/9/2014 2:50 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:

 

On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:33 PM, Kermit Kiser <[hidden email]> wrote:

I am sure that Google chose to use the Java API and language because many programmers were familiar with them and could easily learn to produce Android applications.

They simply did an "embrace and extend". Remember Microsoft's "MS Java"? You steal the mind share and programmers base, while destroying the "write once, run anywhere" concept and level playing field that was the J2ME ecosystem.

But then everyone called MSFT on it, but strangely Google got a free pass from the press and pundits.

I'd like to see the tables reversed now and the IcedRobot project restarted, to put an Android compatibility layer that runs atop standard Java, making Android itself irrelevant ;-p

FC


--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto Revolucionario
- George Orwell

_______________________________________________

Ibm-netrexx mailing list

[hidden email]

Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

 

---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/


_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[Kermit Kiser]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but you are not likely to convince me that Oracle has any intention toward open source software other than controlling things for their benefit. Likewise, you probably won't convince me that Android somehow harms Java environments or philosophies.

BTW: My "competitor to Java" reference was intended to point out that we promote NetRexx to Java programmers, not out of any particular zeal to convert them but in order to help developers while also hopefully extending the longevity of NetRexx itself which I would argue is the best programming language ever created (and I have used many!).

On 5/10/2014 3:43 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:

On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 6:01 PM, Kermit Kiser <[hidden email]> wrote:

I have a different viewpoint. In one sense, you could say NetRexx is an "embrace and replace" competitor to Java.

No, I beg to disagree. Java is more than a language, Java is three things:
1. A Language
2. A runtime environment
3. A Level playing field software ecosystem

So you can use 2 and 3 without actually typing a single line of Java source code. That´s the beauty of Java.
So NOT A SINGLE JVM language is a ¨competitot to Java¨because they RUN ON JAVA (the JVM) and use (2) and (3) in the example above.

The more JVM Languages, the more the Java platform grows.

Oracle (and Sun before it) only wants to have certain control of the platform, in the sense that it doesn´t degenerate into a minefield of different implementations that crash its ¨write once, run anywhere" philosophy.

If Oracle was against JVM languages they wouldn´t sponsor the JVM languages Summit at the Santa Clara campus, don´t you think?.

Just my $0.02
FC
PS: Yes, Oracle wants to make money too, like IBM and the rest... they´re not a non-profit. And the fact that they´ve made OpenJDK the reference implementation of JDK7 and now JDK8 speaks volumes about the extend they wish to go to please the FOSS crowd, yet at the same time charge money for JDK support and commercial use. The alternative would be to give everything away and lose money, Sun style. And we know how that ended didn´t we?. ;)
--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto Revolucionario
- George Orwell

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

[Fernando Cassia-2]

On Sun, May 11, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Kermit Kiser <[hidden email]> wrote:

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but you are not likely to convince me that Oracle has any intention toward open source software other than controlling things for their benefit.

 I can say the same about Google. They like redesigning protocols (ie wanting to replace HTTP with SPDY), and destroying years of standarization in GUIs like CUA menus, with their braindead Chrome browser GUI...

I once read something very funny in an e-mail tagline: "opinions are like *rseholes, everybody's got one". But there's different kinds of opinions, ones based on sentiment and others based on facts.

Here are my facts on why I think Oracle has done a great job:

IBM Joins OpenJDK

http://www.sutor.com/c/2010/10/ibm-joins-the-openjdk-community/

 

SAP joins OpenJDK

http://scn.sap.com/community/open-source/blog/2011/07/14/sap-joins-openjdk

 

AMD and Oracle team up for Java GPU acceleration

http://www.eweek.com/developer/amd-oracle-team-for-openjdk-sumatra-java-gpu-project/

 

Apple and Oracle announce OpenJDK for Mac OS X

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/11/12Oracle-and-Apple-Announce-OpenJDK-Project-for-Mac-OS-X.html

 

Oracle makes OpenJDK the Java7 reference implementaiton

http://www.infoq.com/news/2011/06/openjdk-bylaws

 

Oracle open sources JavaFX 2.0 as OpenJFX under GPL license

http://openjdk.java.net/projects/openjfx/

 

Oracle open sources JavaFX 2.0 for iOS and Android

http://www.infoq.com/news/2013/02/javafx-ios-android

 

Oracle releases Nashorn, the next'generation Javascript engine for theJava VM in Java8 and OpenJDK 8

http://www.dzone.com/links/all_about_oracle_nashorn_the_nextgeneration_javas.html

 

OpenJDK 8, Java 8 Reference Implementation

https://jdk8.java.net/java-se-8-ri/

 

"JDK 8 was developed collaboratively in the OpenJDK Community..."

http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/press/2172618

Likewise, you probably won't convince me that Android somehow harms Java environments or philosophies.

It destroyed the Java ME mobile ecosystem and level playing field (common API in all mobile devices, regardless of underlying OS). Think that isn't enough harm? You can't create a binary app and run it on Android and other J2ME phones, that is effectively an "embrace and extend" of Java in MSFT's own tradition...

FC
--
During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act
Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto Revolucionario
- George Orwell

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/