Comments for Software Research and the Industry http://dirkriehle.com Dirk Riehle's blog about everything computer science, applied and more Sat, 12 May 2012 12:06:17 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 Comment on International Journal of Open Source Software & Processes by Muqan http://dirkriehle.com/2008/04/04/international-journal-of-open-source-software-and-processes/#comment-20468 Muqan Sat, 12 May 2012 12:06:17 +0000 http://www.riehle.org/?p=90#comment-20468 Can you please list some easy, versatile, open source Research Journal softwares, OR can you rank, we are planning to install for our university. Can you please list some easy, versatile, open source Research Journal softwares, OR can you rank, we are planning to install for our university.

]]> Comment on The Java IP Story by 好文: Java 的歷史 與 Timeline | Tsung's Blog http://dirkriehle.com/2011/06/30/the-java-ip-story/#comment-20411 好文: Java 的歷史 與 Timeline | Tsung's Blog Thu, 10 May 2012 17:51:50 +0000 http://dirkriehle.com/?p=2361#comment-20411 [...] The Java IP Story - Java 的歷史演進 [...] [...] The Java IP Story – Java 的歷史演進 [...]

]]> Comment on The Total Growth of Open Source by V1 CMD3 - Open Source [blogpost 2] http://dirkriehle.com/publications/2008-2/the-total-growth-of-open-source/#comment-19874 V1 CMD3 - Open Source [blogpost 2] Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:39:27 +0000 http://www.riehle.org/publications/the-total-growth-of-open-source/#comment-19874 [...] Amit Deshpande and Dirk Riehle. “The Total growth of open source”. [2008] Dirkriehle, http://dirkriehle.com/publications/2008-2/the-total-growth-of-open-source/, 25 [...] [...] Amit Deshpande and Dirk Riehle. “The Total growth of open source”. [2008] Dirkriehle, http://dirkriehle.com/publications/2008-2/the-total-growth-of-open-source/, 25 [...]

]]> Comment on The Java IP Story by Dirk Riehle http://dirkriehle.com/2011/06/30/the-java-ip-story/#comment-19812 Dirk Riehle Tue, 24 Apr 2012 06:07:26 +0000 http://dirkriehle.com/?p=2361#comment-19812 Everyone: Thank you for the comments and feedback! I'll be looking into your questions or suggestions as soon as possible. Everyone: Thank you for the comments and feedback! I’ll be looking into your questions or suggestions as soon as possible.

]]> Comment on The Java IP Story by Simon Phipps http://dirkriehle.com/2011/06/30/the-java-ip-story/#comment-19797 Simon Phipps Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:02:43 +0000 http://dirkriehle.com/?p=2361#comment-19797 Nice overview. Some quibbles after a quick read-through: * We (at IBM) were definitely porting the Java source prior to licensing it from Sun for release in 1995, not 1996. * You don't mention the implied patent license assumed for the GPLv2 -- see e.g. http://www.fenwick.com/publications/pages/potential-defenses-of-implied-patent-license-under-the-gpl.aspx -- and I think it's relevant in several places * Your claim it was the JCP that brought many players to the table is not true. The JCP was created to keep the table peaceful after we all turned up there and insisted on defining the menu. * Your treatment of the initial license as just "proprietary" doesn't do justice to the clever and nuanced "open" strategy. It's true, but it doesn't explain why so many key players wanted Java in 1995 and 1996. * You speak of "field-of-use restrictions in the trademark license" but that's not really accurate. It was the TCK license and although that led to a trademark license it was not itself the trademark license. It would be worth sorting these out as you're very close! Happy to collaborate; you have my co-ordinates. Nice overview. Some quibbles after a quick read-through:
* We (at IBM) were definitely porting the Java source prior to licensing it from Sun for release in 1995, not 1996.
* You don’t mention the implied patent license assumed for the GPLv2 — see e.g. http://www.fenwick.com/publications/pages/potential-defenses-of-implied-patent-license-under-the-gpl.aspx — and I think it’s relevant in several places
* Your claim it was the JCP that brought many players to the table is not true. The JCP was created to keep the table peaceful after we all turned up there and insisted on defining the menu.
* Your treatment of the initial license as just “proprietary” doesn’t do justice to the clever and nuanced “open” strategy. It’s true, but it doesn’t explain why so many key players wanted Java in 1995 and 1996.
* You speak of “field-of-use restrictions in the trademark license” but that’s not really accurate. It was the TCK license and although that led to a trademark license it was not itself the trademark license.

It would be worth sorting these out as you’re very close! Happy to collaborate; you have my co-ordinates.

]]> Comment on The Java IP Story by John Gill http://dirkriehle.com/2011/06/30/the-java-ip-story/#comment-19779 John Gill Mon, 23 Apr 2012 14:30:39 +0000 http://dirkriehle.com/?p=2361#comment-19779 The Oracle v Google lawsuit as about a handful of patents, but Oracle are also claiming copyright infringement. The copyright infringement is particularly interesting is that Google are only accused of copying Java API's [1]. In short, Google used the same API's as standard java for modules such as io and math. They did however write their own code for the actually implementation. It is generally believed that you cannot copyright an API, but Oracle are claiming otherwise. Last week the judge in the trial announced that it will be him, not the jury that decides whether API's can be copyrighted. [1] Google are also accused of copying a small amount (I believe 9 lines of code) directly. The 9 lines are trivial and were only copied as a temporary measure as part of an implementation of timsort() which was a port from python of a Tim Peters sort algorithm. The Oracle v Google lawsuit as about a handful of patents, but Oracle are also claiming copyright infringement.

The copyright infringement is particularly interesting is that Google are only accused of copying Java API’s [1]. In short, Google used the same API’s as standard java for modules such as io and math. They did however write their own code for the actually implementation.

It is generally believed that you cannot copyright an API, but Oracle are claiming otherwise.

Last week the judge in the trial announced that it will be him, not the jury that decides whether API’s can be copyrighted.

[1] Google are also accused of copying a small amount (I believe 9 lines of code) directly. The 9 lines are trivial and were only copied as a temporary measure as part of an implementation of timsort() which was a port from python of a Tim Peters sort algorithm.

]]> Comment on The Java IP Story by Andre http://dirkriehle.com/2011/06/30/the-java-ip-story/#comment-19764 Andre Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:07:21 +0000 http://dirkriehle.com/?p=2361#comment-19764 above should read 'Oracle against Google'. above should read ‘Oracle against Google’.

]]> Comment on The Java IP Story by Andre http://dirkriehle.com/2011/06/30/the-java-ip-story/#comment-19763 Andre Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:06:30 +0000 http://dirkriehle.com/?p=2361#comment-19763 Interesting article, thanks. So what is the current lawsuit by Oracle against Java based on? Presumably not the Java trademark, because Google bypassed that by never calling their implementation Java. Is it thus for the patents in the OpenJDK? If so, do you have any info on these patents? Interesting article, thanks.

So what is the current lawsuit by Oracle against Java based on? Presumably not the Java trademark, because Google bypassed that by never calling their implementation Java.

Is it thus for the patents in the OpenJDK? If so, do you have any info on these patents?

]]> Comment on The Java IP Story by Clive http://dirkriehle.com/2011/06/30/the-java-ip-story/#comment-19755 Clive Mon, 23 Apr 2012 07:13:03 +0000 http://dirkriehle.com/?p=2361#comment-19755 Sir, This is a very good and very helpful overview and "legal history" of JAVA. I have a question relating to the Sun/Microsoft portion of the story, however. In your presentation you state:- "Sun stated that Microsoft modified the JDK by omitting libraries that were needed to run Java well. This required application developers to go directly to the Win32 API." If I recall correctly (I am not a programmer), what Microsoft did was much more subtle than that. They provided a bytecode compiler and integrated JAVA into Visual Studio as Visual J++. The name was a Microsoft in-joke. Just as C++ means "extended C", so J++ means "extended Java". What Microsoft had done was create a standard implementation of the "language syntax" [so that source code could be ported], but the *output* from Microsoft's J++ compiler would produce byte-code that would only run on the Windows platform. I have to be a little careful here as I am not completely sure what "only run on the Windows platform" meant in the real world: i.e. did it mean, not run at all on other platforms, run slowly, run with bugs, etc. However, from following the court case in the press at the time, I think this may be a more accurate representation of facts. Short of "Google", I am not sure how to substantiate my claim, but I will look, and if I find something concrete, I will post an additional comment. Best Regards C Sir,
This is a very good and very helpful overview and “legal history” of JAVA. I have a question relating to the Sun/Microsoft portion of the story, however. In your presentation you state:-

“Sun stated that Microsoft modified the JDK by omitting libraries that were needed to run Java well. This required application developers to go directly to the Win32 API.”

If I recall correctly (I am not a programmer), what Microsoft did was much more subtle than that. They provided a bytecode compiler and integrated JAVA into Visual Studio as Visual J++. The name was a Microsoft in-joke. Just as C++ means “extended C”, so J++ means “extended Java”. What Microsoft had done was create a standard implementation of the “language syntax” [so that source code could be ported], but the *output* from Microsoft’s J++ compiler would produce byte-code that would only run on the Windows platform.

I have to be a little careful here as I am not completely sure what “only run on the Windows platform” meant in the real world: i.e. did it mean, not run at all on other platforms, run slowly, run with bugs, etc. However, from following the court case in the press at the time, I think this may be a more accurate representation of facts. Short of “Google”, I am not sure how to substantiate my claim, but I will look, and if I find something concrete, I will post an additional comment.

Best Regards

C

]]> Comment on The Total Growth of Open Source by Yael Vaya http://dirkriehle.com/publications/2008-2/the-total-growth-of-open-source/#comment-19673 Yael Vaya Sat, 21 Apr 2012 06:41:35 +0000 http://www.riehle.org/publications/the-total-growth-of-open-source/#comment-19673 Thanks :-) Thanks :-)

]]>