×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

JavaFX Runs On Raspberry Pi

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the crushing-fruit dept.

Java 147

mikejuk writes "Oracle seem to be concerned that the Raspberry Pi manages to run Java properly and they are actively working on the problem. To prove that it more than just works, what better than to get a JavaFX app up and running — what could be more cutting edge? Unfortunately the trick was performed using a commercial version of the JDK with JIT support and some private code, but it is still early days yet. Java and JavaFX on Raspberry Pi takes us into a whole new ball game." Watch the video at the linked report to see it in action.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

147 comments

Misread (5, Insightful)

pr0nbot (313417) | about 2 years ago | (#39879451)

I think I've been reading too much Oracle/Java hate on slashdot. I misread the first sentence to mean, "Raspberry Pi manages to run Java properly. Oracle seem to be concerned and are working on the problem."

Re:Misread (4, Insightful)

Infiniti2000 (1720222) | about 2 years ago | (#39879479)

The whole fucking summary is written in broken English. It's not your fault. "It is still early days yet."

Re:Misread (1)

gv250 (897841) | about 2 years ago | (#39879569)

RTFA. The entire article is written in the same broken English.

Re:Misread (4, Insightful)

Dishevel (1105119) | about 2 years ago | (#39879809)

Which means the submitter is the writer of the article and this is just a slashvertisement to get some hits on his site.
And Timmothy is a fucking useless editor.
What part of the "editor" job was done by Timmothy here?
Clicking the "post this shit" button?

Re:Misread (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39880073)

tiMMAAY!

Re:Misread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39880387)

What part of the "editor" job was done by Timmothy here? Clicking the "post this shit" button?

Seriously? Yes, that's what they do. It's been that way forever.

Re:Misread (2)

b0bby (201198) | about 2 years ago | (#39880359)

I'd guess that the submitter, mikejuk, is British. "It is still early days yet" is a common expression in UK English.

Re:Misread (1)

ratbag (65209) | about 2 years ago | (#39881373)

"It's early days yet" is a common expression in English, as spoken here in the UK. The "still" is redundant, either side of the Atlantic.

Re:Misread (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#39882507)

American english is more conservative than the UK english with rules like this. Oddly, it is more conservative but with more improper slang.

Re:Misread (1)

Belial6 (794905) | about 2 years ago | (#39883293)

"Still" is not redundant it indicates that the speaker agrees with the listener on the time that has passed, but disagrees with the point that you stop calling it early.

Re:Misread (1)

ratbag (65209) | about 2 years ago | (#39883835)

I stand by my comment - "still" adds nothing to the sentence as used in the summary, which ends with "yet". There's no disagreement to state - it really is early days. "it's still early days, yet", "it's early days yet", "still, it's early days" and "it's still early days" all say the same thing, with varying economy. The third and fourth options say it most clearly, in my opinion, whereas the first seems clumsy.

Re:Misread (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | about 2 years ago | (#39879667)

Are you sure that's not what was intended? They don't want Java Running on Mobile platforms without a licencing fee collected.

Re:Misread (5, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about 2 years ago | (#39879973)

I've been reading too much Oracle/Java hate on slashdot.

Nobody really admires Oracle except for corporate CEO types. The rest of us have what equates to the same admiration for a dentist's drill. The licensing model is basically un-consentual sex. Having Oracle gunning for more IP just makes everyone uncomfortable.

Re:Misread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39879985)

Sounded right to me. They certainly couldn't have java running good. Needs to be fixed

Re:Misread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39880279)

That's what 99% of us understood.

Re:Misread (1)

xelah (176252) | about 2 years ago | (#39881107)

That's because that's what it actually does mean, and unambiguously so. Presumably the author either doesn't know how to use the subjunctive mood or didn't read his own article properly. (To the grammar-challenged and non-native: take the 's' off 'manages').

How is this news? (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | about 2 years ago | (#39879493)

Java has been running on ARM platform since Acorn RISCOS days. How is this news?

I'm guessing the RISCOS port for Raspberry Pi will run Java too?

Re:How is this news? (1)

Art Challenor (2621733) | about 2 years ago | (#39879581)

JIT

There are a bunch of JVMs for ARM (OpenJDK, JAMVM, etc.), but no free/open JDKs that have JITs. The only open way I know of to get JIT performance is to run the Java classes through IKVMC and then use Mono with its ARM JIT.

Re:How is this news? (3, Informative)

Ignacio (1465) | about 2 years ago | (#39879917)

http://icedtea.classpath.org/wiki/ZeroSharkFaq [classpath.org]

"What architectures do Zero and Shark work on?

As of December 2008, Zero is known to work on Alpha, ARM, IA-64, MIPS, PowerPC, x86, x86-64 and zSeries.

Shark should be able to build on any Zero-supported system that LLVM has a JIT for. As of October 2009, this is ARM, PowerPC, x86 and x86-64. "

JavaFX != Java (4, Interesting)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 years ago | (#39879671)

And for that matter, JavaFX 2 (a Java library) is apparently a huge break from JavaFX (a scripting language for the JRE).

This is all pretty confusing.

We picked up JavaFX for a while because, amazingly, there was no practical way to replay video in Java. (Please don't tell me about that crufty, abandoned joke from 2001 called JMF). Then JavaFX keeled over and died when Oracle bought Sun. If JavaFX 2 provides a video player widget, maybe it is useful.

Re:JavaFX != Java (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39880199)

Not really that confusing. JavaFX 1 was a scripting language with a graphics library underneath. JavaFX 2 did away with the scripting language (thank god), and now you write standard Java and it uses the graphics library underneath. The whole kit and kaboodle is part of JDK 7, and works very well.

Re:JavaFX != Java (0)

gladish (982899) | about 2 years ago | (#39882251)

If JavaFX 2 provides a video player widget, maybe it is useful.

Ya because no one has figured out how to play video on the web yet.

Re:JavaFX != Java (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39882273)

What the hell does the web have to do with anything what so ever in this discussion?
Don't you realize you are posting to a JAVA discussion??

Re:JavaFX != Java (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#39882547)

The tools suck ass too.

They are no tools. Sun's excuse was to use Adobe Flash Builder to create JavaFX??

Well if I paid all this money for it, why don't I use compile it to a flash? Idiots.

Oracle is even worse and more out too lunch.

Foot, meet bullet. (5, Insightful)

IGnatius T Foobar (4328) | about 2 years ago | (#39879543)

Oracle have shot themselves in the foot, and this is a good example of why. Even if the R-Pi runs Java, no one is going to trust Oracle not to sue them out of existence after the way they've abused Google over its use of Java on the Android platform.

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39879721)

Oracle have shot themselves in the foot, and this is a good example of why. Even if the R-Pi runs Java, no one is going to trust Oracle not to sue them out of existence after the way they've abused Google over its use of Java on the Android platform.

The irony of this astroturfing/trolling comment accusing the article of being astroturfing is almost too much...

Please, the vast majority Java was open sourced in 2006 under the GPL, you may have heard of it, people call it "that viral, hippy license". IBM backs Java, remember what they did to SCO?

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (1)

Galestar (1473827) | about 2 years ago | (#39879881)

The irony of this astroturfing/trolling comment

I think you misunderstand the definition of astroturfing. A single comment cannot be an astroturf unless that commenter works for the company attempting to astroturf. What company do you accuse him of working for?

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (5, Informative)

reg (5428) | about 2 years ago | (#39880035)

>Please, the vast majority Java was open sourced in 2006 under the GPL

The code was. But if you want to write any Java code you need to use Java APIs. Those are copyright and subject to Oracle's terms of use. Go to http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/index.html [oracle.com] - see that link to a copyright statement at the bottom: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/legal/cpyr.html [oracle.com]. That document says:

  1. 1. This software ... provided under a license agreement containing restrictions on use ...
  2. 2. Except as expressly permitted in your license agreement or allowed by law, you may not use, ... any part, in any form, or by any means.

So what is the license agreement: Try to download the documentation (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/documentation/java-se-7-doc-download-435117.html [oracle.com]). That has a click though agreement to http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/licenses/java-se-7-spec-license.txt [oracle.com], which in turn says:

1. License for Evaluation Purposes. Oracle hereby grants you a fully-paid, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, limited license (without the right to sublicense), under Oracle's applicable intellectual property rights to view, download, use and reproduce the Specification only for the purpose of internal evaluation. This includes (i) developing applications intended to run on an implementation of the Specification, provided that such applications do not themselves implement any portion(s) of the Specification, and (ii) discussing the Specification with any third party; and (iii) excerpting brief portions of the Specification in oral or written communications which discuss the Specification provided that such excerpts do not in the aggregate constitute a significant portion of the Specification.

So - you can use the APIs for internal evaluation only. In other words - if you wish to use them for any other purpose you need another license from Oracle.

This is exactly the case Oracle has advanced against Google (who violated clause (i) above by implementing the specification).

But, they could advance a case against any Java developer, because no matter how they learned Java, these licenses do not extend third party rights, so each developer has to officially learn about Java through the Java specifications. And if you are using Java for any purpose other than evaluation, you are in violation.

If you use something other Java SE, then you are even worse off, because the APIs are not actually published. The licenses for various versions of Java have changed slightly over the years (the one for Java 5 - which Google is being sued under - says that the license overrides all other statements from Sun, although Oracle's lawyers didn't read that far into the license else they would have used that clause to nullify the damaging testimony about Sun's approvals of Google's actions.

Before you accuse people of astroturfing, learn the turf.

Regards,
-Jeremy

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39880521)

I'm confused.

So by writing code that calls anything in the API, you're infringing? That doesn't seem right. Now if I re-implement the API elsewhere, that seems like a violation, but wouldn't that make any non-oracle JRE illegitimate?

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (1)

PCM2 (4486) | about 2 years ago | (#39880883)

If the API itself is copyrighted, then it could mean that any source code that links to a library that implements the copyrighted API is a derivative work. It could also mean that any non-Oracle JRE is illegitimate, yes. These are issues currently being hammered out in the courts.

It seems clear that Oracle is attempting an end-run around the whole concept of open source Java. It may succeed. If it doesn't, that also leaves a lot of open questions.

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39880633)

Where I live APIs and programming languages cannot be subject to copyright.

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (3, Informative)

peppepz (1311345) | about 2 years ago | (#39880737)

You're mixing the licenses of the GPL OpenJDK (the GPL does not allow "field of use" restictions), Oracle's binary JDK, and Oracle's Java specification.

So - you can use the APIs for internal evaluation only. In other words - if you wish to use them for any other purpose you need another license from Oracle.

Did we red the same piece of text?

includes (i) developing applications intended to run on an implementation of the Specification

means exactly that you can develop all applications you want using the Java APIs, how do you interpret that as "they could advance a case against any Java developer"?

This is exactly the case Oracle has advanced against Google (who violated clause (i) above by implementing the specification).

No, Google
1) did NOT use the GPL OpenJDK, and therefore they're not covered by the GPL license; and they expressly chose not to use the OpenJDK because they dislike the GPL, as Google said explicitly in their published emails;
2) violated this part, of the license, that you omitted to quote:

2. License for the Distribution of Compliant Implementations. Oracle also grants you a perpetual, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, limited license (without the right to sublicense) under any applicable copyrights or, subject to the provisions of subsection 4 below, patent rights it may have covering the Specification to create and/or distribute an Independent Implementation of the Specification that: (a) fully implements the Specification including all its required interfaces and functionality; (b) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages, classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name Space other than those required/authorized by the Specification or Specifications being implemented; and (c) passes the Technology Compatibility Kit (including satisfying the requirements of the applicable TCK Users Guide) for such Specification ("Compliant Implementation").

In other words, Oracle claim that Google created a Java-based platform that is not compatible with Java, and called it Java. Which is what Microsoft did in the 90s (and has nothing to do with the developers of Java applications). A judge will decide if this is the case, but saying that every Java user could be sued for writing Java applications is frankly not true.

And if you are using Java for any purpose other than evaluation, you are in violation.

Again, you're omitting to say that the license explicitly allows you to:
1) develop applications for Java (ANY Java platform implementation)
2) develop complete implementations of the Java platform.

There is only one thing you can't do: develop an incompatible implementation of the Java platform and call that thing Java. You can create incompatible implementations of the GPL code of course, but then you can't call it Java. Oracle thinks that Google did that.

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (3, Interesting)

PCM2 (4486) | about 2 years ago | (#39881091)

In other words, Oracle claim that Google created a Java-based platform that is not compatible with Java, and called it Java.

Except for two things:

1. Google doesn't say their OS runs Java. It says you write apps for Android in the Java language, which Oracle is still insisting is "free for anyone to use" -- just apparently not for Google to use. Google has never said that Android is an implementation of the Java platform, however, which is what Google licenses.

2.A large part of Google's "Java-based platform" is derived from Apache Harmony. To be in compliance with the Java license terms you quote, an implementation must pass the TCK. As we all know, Oracle has refused to grant the Apache Foundation access to the TCK, except under terms that would violate the Apache open source license. So it's a little disingenuous to say Google violated the license, when Oracle specifically wouldn't allow Apache (or Google) to comply with the license.

So IMHO it's still largely Oracle's acting in bad faith that led to this pass.

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (0)

peppepz (1311345) | about 2 years ago | (#39882765)

1) Just like Microsoft did back in the 90s (emphasis mine):

Learn about the features of Visual J++ 6.0 designed to help developers build commercial-quality Microsoft Windows®-based applications in the Java language.

A judge ruled against Microsoft back then, a judge will decide if Google did the same thing today.

2) You're talking about the Java SE license, which has nothing to do with the Google case.
Sun provided two licensing options for Java.
a) Java SE is a full version of Java that is free for everyone to use and implement fully - Sun didn't want money for that, and they even released a GPL implementation of it, therefore granting usage for all the patents involved.
b) Java ME is a reduced version of Java for mobile phones that is NOT free, and Sun wanted money to license it.
c) Sun clearly did not want indipendent implementations of different subsets of Java, as it would undermine their licensing model by making option (b) useless.

Google was interested in Java ME, but they could not allow Android to be restricted by Java ME's licensing terms. But they didn't want to resort to option (a), because they do not want GPL software in Android either (beyond the Linux kernel). So they decided to have the cake (the Java development ecosystem) and eat it (not giving a penny to Sun and not having GPL code in userspace).

You say that in this story it's Oracle that is acting in bad faith? I see it differently - even though I hope that Google win in the end, because as a Java user I'd like Java to be as open as possible.

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (1)

PCM2 (4486) | about 2 years ago | (#39882885)

2) You're talking about the Java SE license, which has nothing to do with the Google case.

I'm talking about the license text you quoted. If it has nothing to do with the Google case, why did you quote it? Go back and read the last line of the section you cut and pasted. It says TCK required. Oracle denied the Apache Foundation access to the TCK. Bad faith.

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (1)

peppepz (1311345) | about 2 years ago | (#39883745)

You're right, I didn't express myself correctly. It's not the Java SE license itself that has nothing to do with the Google case, it's the TCK requirement.

Google never implemented Java SE. They never claimed to implement Java SE, and therefore they never needed the TCK to prove that their implementation could be called Java SE. Had they tried to implement Java SE, then the TCK availability would have been a requirement for them in order to call their implementation "Java". This is the case for Apache Harmony. But this didn't happen in Google's case, because they didn't implement Java SE in the first place, they just defined their own blurry subset of Java, so different from the Java platform that running the TCK over it wouldn't even be a well-defined operation, let alone have any chance to succeed.

Oracle denied the Apache Foundation access to the TCK. Bad faith.

Sorry if I insist, but Sun never licensed the TCK for free to anyone (without FOU restictions). They're not doing a special exception for Google. Why would it be "bad faith" on their side to decide their own license conditions? It's FRAND in my opinion.

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (2)

PCM2 (4486) | about 2 years ago | (#39883113)

Sorry to reply twice, but ...

1) Just like Microsoft did back in the 90s (emphasis mine):

An important distinction here is that Microsoft did purchase a Java license from Sun. So Sun definitely had a case that Microsoft violated the explicit terms of the specific contract it had with Sun.

Google, on the other hand, did not have a license from Oracle because it could not obtain one. The only license that applies here is Oracle's stated public grant of a license to implement the JDK. It seems to me that whether that license was being fairly and faithfully applied is an important legal matter here. If Oracle says "everybody can use Java, but only if you do this, this, and this, and we won't let certain parties do the last one," is that defensible?

I used to believe the way you do, BTW. When the lawsuit was first announced, I wrote an editorial called "Why Oracle was right to sue Google." But as the issues in the case have emerged and a lot of Oracle's original claims have been whittled away, I've started to see it the other way.

I do believe that Google's choice to go with Java as its main language may prove to be a mistake, though. I think it made that decision out of a desire to move quickly against Apple, but it did it in a kinda sneaky way and it ended up getting bitten. How badly remains to be seen.

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (2)

khipu (2511498) | about 2 years ago | (#39881181)

violated this part, of the license, that you omitted to quote: 2. License for the Distribution of Compliant Implementations. Oracle also grants you a perpetual, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, limited license

Nobody has to give a f*ck about that. That license is a license you need to agree to in order to copy Oracle's copyrighted material. If you don't copy their copyrighted material, that license doesn't matter.

There is only one thing you can't do: develop an incompatible implementation of the Java platform and call that thing Java.

If that were the case, Oracle would be suing Google over trademark violations. But Oracle is suing Google over copyright and patent violations, so your statement that that is "the only thing" you can't do is wrong.

The Oracle lawsuit demonstrates that Java is, in fact, a quagmire of patents, copyrights, and trademarks, and it is neither free nor open.

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#39881313)

It demonstrates that Oracle thinks Java is. The court will ultimately decide if re-implementing the Java libraries does indeed constitute some violation of Oracle's IP.

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (0)

peppepz (1311345) | about 2 years ago | (#39882149)

That license is a license you need to agree to in order to copy Oracle's copyrighted material. If you don't copy their copyrighted material, that license doesn't matter.

The copyrighted material is the specification document that the license is attached to.

If that were the case, Oracle would be suing Google over trademark violations.

But Oracle is suing Google over copyright and patent violations, so your statement that that is "the only thing" you can't do is wrong.

It's as wrong as all absolute statements, which are meant to be read with common sense IMHO. That said, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm more interested in real examples of things that you can't do with Java beyond creating an incompatible implementation and marketing it as such. Writing Java applications isn't one of the things you can't do. Writing complete Java implementations isn't one either. What else is missing?

The Oracle lawsuit demonstrates that Java is, in fact, a quagmire of patents, copyrights, and trademarks, and it is neither free nor open.

Just like any piece of software in existence, e.g. Linux (it violates the MICROS~1 patent), thanks to the brokenness of the patent system. But at least, Java is as free and open as the GPL - which clears all problems of copyrights and patents (as far as Oracle is concerned); not of trademarks. Google did not use the GPL-licensed OpenJDK, which is what this thread is about.

I do agree that Oracle is harming the credibility of Java as an open source platform with this behaviour.

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39883023)

The Oracle lawsuit demonstrates that Java is, in fact, a quagmire of patents, copyrights, and trademarks, and it is neither free nor open.

Not really, all it demonstrates is that our legal system, especially around technology, is a quagmire. Pick any mature platform and it probably violates tons of patents and maybe some copyright. The only thing that is typically missing is someone to sue who also happens to have deep pockets. You'd think the SCO lawsuit would have taught you folks a thing or two. Using Java is no more dangerous than using anything. Google and Oracle are in a game of chicken that will only ever occur between two, very large parties, that typically have a lot of cash, copyrighted material, and patent warchests.

In other words, nothing to see here, move along, feel free to use Java if it suits your purpose.

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (1)

reg (5428) | about 2 years ago | (#39883361)

You're mixing the licenses of the GPL OpenJDK (the GPL does not allow "field of use" restictions), Oracle's binary JDK, and Oracle's Java specification.

No, the OpenJDK and binary licenses have never been part of the actual case. The Java SE 1.4 and Java SE 5 versions of the license I quoted are the only licenses Oracle has entered into evidence (although I've not read all 1000+ documents).

Did we red the same piece of text?

includes (i) developing applications intended to run on an implementation of the Specification

means exactly that you can develop all applications you want using the Java APIs, how do you interpret that as "they could advance a case against any Java developer"?

Well, OK, anyone that has used Java externally, or has commercialized their use. This is a classic industry license which lets you look, but if you want to play you have to pay. You are allowed to determine if Java is right for you. Sure, Sun always interpreted this as meaning "Java is free for use" (and Oracle still claim that), but Oracle are showing that they can come up with some very interesting interpretations of the law. So, maybe Java is safe, maybe Oracle will need more cash and change their tune...

No, Google
1) did NOT use the GPL OpenJDK, and therefore they're not covered by the GPL license; and they expressly chose not to use the OpenJDK because they dislike the GPL, as Google said explicitly in their published emails;
2) violated this part, of the license, that you omitted to quote:

2. License for the Distribution of Compliant Implementations. Oracle also grants you a perpetual, non-exclusive, non-transferable, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, limited license (without the right to sublicense) under any applicable copyrights or, subject to the provisions of subsection 4 below, patent rights it may have covering the Specification to create and/or distribute an Independent Implementation of the Specification that: (a) fully implements the Specification including all its required interfaces and functionality; (b) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the Licensor Name Space, or include any public or protected packages, classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the Licensor Name Space other than those required/authorized by the Specification or Specifications being implemented; and (c) passes the Technology Compatibility Kit (including satisfying the requirements of the applicable TCK Users Guide) for such Specification ("Compliant Implementation").

In other words, Oracle claim that Google created a Java-based platform that is not compatible with Java, and called it Java. Which is what Microsoft did in the 90s (and has nothing to do with the developers of Java applications). A judge will decide if this is the case, but saying that every Java user could be sued for writing Java applications is frankly not true.

This part of the license is irrelevant. Google do not claim to implement Java or a compliant implementation. They are therefore not entitled to patent protection (which is why they are being sued for patent infringement). This is why the case is split into two portions: a copyright portion, because Oracle claim Google have violated the first part of the license, by copying the APIs (and a bit of code). Google's defense is three part:

  1. That this license is invalid because the APIs are not subject to copyright (this is what the judge will decide),
  2. That even if they are subject to copyright, their use is fair (clause (ii) and (iii) of the Java SE 7 license I quoted are not in the older ones, but appear to be trying to define "fair use") and
  3. Even if the use was not fair, it was de minimus (minimal) and so they should be allowed to get away with it. (and the copied bits of code were copied but minimal).

Using the OpenJDK might have saved them some grief, but it was never a real issue. Oracle only raised because they were desperate for quotes to show Google knew they needed a license.

The patent portion is because they clearly did not meet part 2 of the license.

Regards,
-Jeremy

Re:It doesn't matter (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#39882771)

Java is a classic example of a great shiny new technology where incompetent management ruins the product and technology.

Java was way ahead of its time and fucking awesome in the 1990s and Sun could have done so much back then. Sun refused to:
1. Let you compile for .exe's so a user could just point and click to run a program
2. Failed to integrate into the hosts native OS when no equilivent Java api would suffice
3. Didn't charge money for it. I know slashdotters hate this idea but more money generated could have funded more things like how C# and .NET keeps improving
4. Failed to implement a mobile strategy thatw as cost effective and didn't blow
5. Let Java fall behind

#5 is a big one. If any programmer could create a java program and it would run across all platforms as a native executable that would rock. Nope, Sun wanted you to tell users to type java program.class each and everytime. ERRR no can do. Java should charge for its enterprise versions and have a free one for regular hobbists so that way Sun could add more development and can grow it. Worse today in 2012 Java is far behind C#. C# has enumerators, boxing, and other features (I think Java supports enumerators now, but I have not touched it since 2005). Still it is very late to add this in 2006 and later when C# already had it. Sun lost Android for wanting to keep its Java2ME proprietary and refusing to make its executables more platform specific for better performance.

Sun only cared about Solaris and their servers. They let java wither and refused to give an inch in terms of portability for that reasons.No one cares about the licensing anymore unless its $$$ which Oracle is trying to do right now. Its still a great language but like Netscape before it is old and stale.

I hated C#.NET on principle when it came out. But I see no real innovation for anyone to want to go back. Oracle is being compentent with charging arms and legs for it and thats it as it wont matter anymore. What a shame as in a different universe it could have been the #1 language to develop on. It just didn't evolve and was screwed over by management.

Re:It doesn't matter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39882813)

Sun let Solaris whither too when Linux came onto the scenes. Besides ZFS Solaris was always a terrible workstation OS.

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39879811)

Oracle isn't suing Google for *using* Java. They're suing for *forking* Java. I think most people (outside slashdot populists) can see the distinction.

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (2)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 2 years ago | (#39880355)

We can, but the distinction isn't as large as you think it is. Sticking a framework over Java (and who doesn't do that?) creates an incompatible environment in that software for Java + Framework is unlikely to work for just Java. And lest you consider that OK because it's a superset, bear in mind that the majority of frameworks only need a subset of Java to be functional and useful, and anyone in the process of developing a J2SE implementation is inherently going to develop subsets.

Basically, if Oracle succeeds, then realistically anyone not using the official OpenJDK binaries from the official Oracle repositories is going to have to wonder how clear they are.

While I don't want to overstate the issue, given (1) Oracle has shown no evidence of working in good faith here, (2) Oracle's history of acting in bad faith (such as their refusal to allow benchmarks of Oracle software) and (3) the ease with which someone can create software that's a threat to Oracle, I'd be inclined to recommend people stay clear, not because there's a 99% chance Oracle will sue them, but because there's a 1% chance they will. And that 1% is somewhat larger than the chance of being sued by Guido van Rossum, Larry Page, or, for that matter, Microsoft. What's the point of taking a risk, no matter how minor, if perfectly clear and acceptable alternatives exist?

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39879903)

the way they've sued Google over its abuse of Java on the Android platform.

FTFY

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (2)

hendridm (302246) | about 2 years ago | (#39880141)

I think it's neat that we can sue someone over the way they (ab)use a language.

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39880317)

I'm starting a class action lawsuit. Grammar Nazis vs. the Department of Education and AOL. The main argument of the lawsuit is that AOL encouraged illiteracy, and the education system did not correct the issue. AOL is at fault for its actions, while the DoE is held liable for negligence over the last 30 years.

I claim this article as exhibit N, and the comments section as exhibit N1.

Re:Foot, meet bullet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39880477)

It amazes me how retarded this person is.

No to Java : not trustworthy: (3, Insightful)

Bozovision (107228) | about 2 years ago | (#39879589)

Oracle's ludicrous claims in the Oracle/Google Android trial have shown that they are not trustworthy. Do not base your work on a base where you can be ransomed. No more Java. :-( And when you read Java stories, wonder to yourself every time whether it's the Oracle PR department astroturfing Java stories in an attempt to make Java appear relevant or to attempt to repair the damage.

Re:No to Java : not trustworthy: (-1, Troll)

ashpool7 (18172) | about 2 years ago | (#39879927)

If you base it on Java and follow the license, you'll be ok.

If you make a Java ripoff and not be very diligent in your chinese wall cloning efforts, then you probably do have something to worry about.

Re:No to Java : not trustworthy: (5, Interesting)

cduffy (652) | about 2 years ago | (#39880311)

If you make a Java ripoff and not be very diligent in your chinese wall cloning efforts, then you probably do have something to worry about.

Have you actually followed Oracle v. Google?

The amount of "Chinese wall" breakage is minuscule -- the rangeCheck function and a bunch of *Impl files which were only ever used in the test suite and which never made it into any shipping phone. The jury is likely to decide that this copying is de minimis, and thus excusable, and even if they don't, good luck showing substantial damages from it.

The place where Oracle is placing their stand isn't on claims that Google got their clean-room development procedures wrong, but on a claim that the APIs themselves are copyrighted, and thereby that anything built to be compatible with them necessarily infringes. That's a very different ballgame, and a much more dangerous claim.

Re:No to Java : not trustworthy: (3, Informative)

sourcerror (1718066) | about 2 years ago | (#39880641)

Oracle went total asshole, but I don't believe they can pull off that API copyrighting stuff. (In Europe it's already thorwn out.) Also, the whole debacle is unlikely to affect J2EE and J2SE developers.

Re:No to Java : not trustworthy: (1)

cduffy (652) | about 2 years ago | (#39882059)

Oracle went total asshole, but I don't believe they can pull off that API copyrighting stuff.

There's a good chance they can -- the jury's instructions were to assume that structure and organization are copyrightable elements, with the judge to decide later whether this is actually true. So -- it'll be down to Judge Willium Alsup to make this determination (and then, of course, the various appeals courts to decide if they agree).

Indeed, Europe doesn't allow this... and good for them. Sadly, I'm on the side of the pond where it's still an open question.

Re:No to Java : not trustworthy: (1)

ashpool7 (18172) | about 2 years ago | (#39880745)

No, not closely, but really, if you're not trying to hack around the licensing agreement, it's not that big a deal to use Java.

Re:No to Java : not trustworthy: (1)

khipu (2511498) | about 2 years ago | (#39881227)

Google never agreed to any licensing agreement.

And, of course it's not "that big of a deal to use Java". But neither is using Windows or C#. It's just that they are all proprietary platforms effectively controlled by a single company.

Re:No to Java : not trustworthy: (1)

cbreak (1575875) | about 2 years ago | (#39880237)

That's exactly it. If even one of the most prominent Java users Google is sued only for using the Java API (as basis for their own VM), then just imagine if someone else uses the API in combination with Oracle's own JVM, they'd have even less defense. And most people probably are not even able to pay for a Google-style lawyer army.

Still waiting on my Pi... (2)

fatbuckel (1714764) | about 2 years ago | (#39879621)

so this story is a moot point.

Re:Still waiting on my Pi... (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#39879823)

No, this story is "Thursday". Tomorrow's R-Pi story will be totally different, about a completely different computer program running on a computer.

Don't worry... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39879715)

Don't worry. Oracle won't sue anyone for using Java on this platform until there is some money to be made. You are OK playing with it on the RaspPi for now...

Re:Don't worry... (0)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#39880005)

Oracle hasn't sued anyone for 'using Java'. THey have sued someone for making a reverse engineered JVM and library. There's a world of difference.

Re:Don't worry... (1)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | about 2 years ago | (#39880457)

But it wasn't reverse engineered, it was re-implemented. The issue is weather or not you can copyright a language and an API and what terms the Java language and standard API were licensed under - things that were never really defined in a non-ambiguous way.

I also think you read the parents post differently than I did. I consider "re-implementing and deploying" to be synonimous with "using" and in that case Oracle has totally alienated anyone who would try to implement and deploy their own native Java on their own platform. In a way this is the absolute opposite of the paradigims that govern languages like Ruby and Python. With Ruby and Python re-implementation and modification is encouraged. Both projects have evolved by taking ideas from alternative implementations and incorporating them. Some VMs for these languages are actually commerical - so I cold write my own Ruby VM and sell it and nobody would complain.

Also, as someone who is coding Java on Android right now I'd like to say this: WTF is wrong with you Google!? JAVA IS AN AWFUL LANGAUGE! Why the hell didn't you just use C++? As much as I dislike Apple I must say they made a damn fine choice with Objective C. God damn.

Re:Don't worry... (4, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 2 years ago | (#39880545)

Dalvik isn't a reverse engineered JVM. It's not even a JVM. It's a VM, but has almost as much in common with the Java VM as UCSD p-Code.

Nor was the library reverse engineered. Reverse engineering doesn't involve reading official specs and writing your own version from those specs. It describes a process of cloning something by determining how it works by looking at the tool itself, and then creating a functional equivalent. The FFMPEG team, for example, wrote a compliant MPEG 1 decoder, but reverse engineered their Real Video decoder.

Oracle is suing Google for using the Java programming language in a way that Oracle doesn't like. That's essentially what's happening, nothing more and nothing less. Google felt the best solution for the work they were doing was to take a commonly used, familiar, and robust programming language (which until this lawsuit nobody thought was copyrightable), to implement a subset of the libraries that come with the language in its native form (kinda like every C compiler since the 1970s came with most of the stdio "API", but not the Unix functions like open() or unlink()), and to include its own Android specific libraries too.

Until the Oracle lawsuit, nobody on planet Earth had a problem with that. As I said above, if that were illegal, then so was every C compiler from BDS C (CP/M) to Lattice C (Commodore Amiga, Sinclair QL.)

What's different? Sun's management at the time - their CEO even - didn't see this as a legal or moral problem, even if they did see it as a potential business problem. Schwartz is on record saying he was glad Google picked Java over alternatives such as "Microsoft Windows".

Yes, Google is being sued for using the Java programming language in Android. They're not being sued over "reverse engineering", they're certainly not being sued for making a JVM (because they didn't), this is about Google using Java. And anyone considering making Java a part of anything they do in future has to consider the cost of doing so if Oracle prevails.

Re:Don't worry... (1)

Tetch (534754) | about 2 years ago | (#39881063)

Without getting deep into subtleties of their lawsuit against Google which I don't understand, what Oracle has effectively done is scare the pants off anyone who was contemplating using Java for any purpose ever again.

Perhaps that was their purpose .... maybe they just want to be rid of the burden of maintaining something they have to give away for the public good, without prospect of making megabucks from it. If that's the case, I just don't understand why they can't just hand the source to the community, and declare themselves to be no longer involved.

Imagine ... if Grace Hopper and the CODASYL Committee [wikipedia.org], or John Backus and colleagues at IBM [wikipedia.org], or Peter Naur, Donald Knuth and the ACM [wikipedia.org] had been as pathetically venal and moronic as Oracle Corporation ... what kind of sadly crippled and fractured industry we'd be working in now.

Perhaps it's bye-bye-Java time. Sigh. What a bunch of slimy creeps there must be at Oracle Corp ... Whassamatter Larry ? Need a new yacht ?

Yeah right... (3, Insightful)

ilsaloving (1534307) | about 2 years ago | (#39879905)

You would have to be a fool to write *anything* new with Java. There is nothing in Java that is worth the risk of Oracle ramming a lawsuit up your posterior as soon as they think you have money they can bleed from you.

Re:Yeah right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39881051)

So, what would you suggest as an alternative? Python? And don't give me that dotNet community promise BS 'cause I ain't interested.

Re:Yeah right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39881433)

Yeah it's so bad that even C# / Mono seems a safer choice.
MS has been out-eviled !

Whole New Ballgame (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 years ago | (#39879923)

That game being Oracle suing everyone for daring to reference a Java API. A pox on Larry Ellison's yacht House.

Re:Whole New Ballgame (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39879993)

And you can list those lawsuits, right? And, no, Google isn't being sued for programming in Java and referencing the API. It's being sued over making an incompatible implementaion that they claim infringes patents and copyright. Yes, you hate Oracle, but bashing them for absurd made up claims makes you look stupid.

Re:Whole New Ballgame (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39880433)

And who looks stupid in reality? Dalvik is not a java vm, it does not execute java byte code and use a different instruction set. Also relevant; Google never claimed it to be Java. IOW, STFU astroturfer.

I fail to see (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39880001)

Why developers who want to control their cpu keep putting someone else between themselves and their hardware. C/C++ and many other higher level languages are functional and productive in the right hands and don't have these copyright/patent/etc issues that Java/Oracle (insert third party here) have. In other words, you can either control the computer or let them tell you what you can do with your computer. Take your pick.

Java community you perplex me to no end.

Re:I fail to see (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#39880163)

The only patent and copyright issues are from other implementations of the language. Not from programming in the language. Absolutely no has or will be sued for using OpenJDK. Also, no one writing Dalvik apps is being sied. Only Google is being sued over their own reimplementation of the JVM and associated libraries which Oracle is claiming copyright and patents on.

Re:I fail to see (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 2 years ago | (#39880265)

Why developers who want to control their cpu keep putting someone else between themselves and their hardware. C/C++ and many other higher level languages are functional and productive in the right hands and don't have these copyright/patent/etc issues that Java/Oracle (insert third party here) have. In other words, you can either control the computer or let them tell you what you can do with your computer. Take your pick.

Java community you perplex me to no end.

Things were damn near utopian with java before oracle bought sun. Java devs don't instantly hate something they've come to be rather fond of instantly when some shitball company buys it? Surprise, surprise..

Re:I fail to see (2)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#39880493)

not nearly really utopian. the way they ran relations to mobile sucked bigtime always, they could have handled j2me jsr's etc really much, much better. that side which was extremely relevant for the last decade seemed like it had nobody at the helm - so they had total licensing control which was very strict but then they enforced all the wrong things for the api implementors.

I'm rather surprised at this javafx announcement(seems some guy working at O doing it too?) really. if they hadn't fucked up with javame and javafx so badly years and years ago android wouldn't have been relevant(really, look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Musicpinboardmobile.png [wikipedia.org] and you'll understand why oracle is pissed off about android - they view it as something that should have been their moment of glory, not googles).

and I'm surprised since this is the first time I hear about a device which is available for purchase that runs javafx :). and the irony it being Pi.. damn.. . yes it appears to have been available for a beagleboard too, but that never hit my radar(probably because running it on beagle was oracle inside thing only?? ), it's probably available for some other devices too. as far as real development goes it seems pretty useless and the pi fanbois are blowing it's usability out of proportion though.. a running dalvik with gpu accel would be really useful, not this.

it seems the whole thing is just internal oracle stuff too. but they might be keeping javafx alive for the sole purpose of having more guns for the lawsuit or some other lawsuit...

Re:I fail to see (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#39882985)

Both Oracle and mostly Sun killed Java. It was a great technology actually in the 1990s. It was neglected and crippled ... for portability according to Sun because Sun wanted to sell more Solaris workstations which also were ugly and very outdated compared to Linux. No point and clicks allowed to run the .class files!

Anyway JavaFX sucked because there was no tool to create them in. Sorry but a text editor does not give me visual layout, colar callibration, and other things that Adobe Flash Builder has. It is the argument for Photoshop vs CLI imageMagik or Latex where you type things and use your imagination for what it *might* look like. That is unacceptable. Sun didn't commit to JavaFX enough to build a gui editing program for it. Instead they made a template for Adobe Flash. Gee so I pay $$$ for it and I can also just compile my video for flash instead? Why use JavaFX then? Idiots

javaMe is truly awefull too. It is not smart about screen resolutions and each mobile developer has to rewrite the app for each phone. Even .NET mobile is better for crying out loud. Java was great when it was new but after drinking their own coolaide it whithered. Now Oracle is the collections agency trying to maximize on its asset for maximum profit anyway possible for the poor saps stuck using it.

Re:I fail to see (1)

Kagetsuki (1620613) | about 2 years ago | (#39880549)

Well the only "great" thing about Java is the JVM - which in and of itself isn't that great. Google easily could have implemented a full NDK and provided template makefiles to produce ARM and x86 binaries and just made a system to sort them out and choose the right one for download/install.

As for higher level languages some do have big benefits. Ruby and Python can do some amazing things in very little code and with very little coding time - and the reality is most machines perform well enough now that you don't need to worry about performance of most apps. If you do you can always write someting in a mid or low-level language and link it up.

Also, the whole Java motto of "write once run anywhere" is total BS. Every single device and implementation out there is totally different to the point you can't even write non-GUI apps and expect them to run on non-target platforms -- don't even get me started on GUI stuff. Add to that the fact the Java langauge is dated, featureless and ugly. I mean come on, when you can't even implement vectors, er..."ArrayLists" without array style accessors there's something wrong. Don't even get me started on anything involving nested data tables or the fact you can't override initializers or... GHAAA I HATE JAVA!

Bitter (4, Insightful)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 2 years ago | (#39880207)

It might run JavaFX for you but for me it doesn't run a damn thing. Why? Because I can't seem to ORDER one! Well, unless I go over to ebay and pay $200 for one... PLEASE RAMP UP PRODUCTION, PI TEAM!

Re:Bitter (2)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about 2 years ago | (#39880919)

Did you register interest at either RS/Allied or Element 14/Farnell? If yes then congratulations, you've indicated that you want Raspberry Pi production to increase. If no then why not? That's how RS and Farnell know that they should be baking more Raspberry Pis!

The Raspberry Pi Foundation is no longer manufacturing the boards -- at the moment production is totally in the hands of RS and Farnell!

Re:Bitter (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 2 years ago | (#39881941)

I registered with element 14. I didn't realize these guys were actually manufacturing the boards, I thought they were just resellers.

Re:Bitter (2)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about 2 years ago | (#39882305)

The first run of 10k was commissioned by the Foundation to be produced by a Chinese factory. Those 10k boards were then shipped to Farnell and Allied to be resold. At the same time, Farnell and Allied were both given non-exclusive licenses to produce the Raspberry Pi on their own. At the current time all Pis to be built after the first 10k production run will be made by Farnell and Allied however they desire (most likely direct shipped from factories in China.) If we're lucky more manufacturers will license the Pi as well.

Re:Bitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39880977)

Getting mine at the end of the month if the email is to be believed. Good luck getting yours. Hope it gets here sooner than later.

Who gives a shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39880315)

Seriously, who gives a shit? Java is a language for safety-obsessed corporate droids. Raspberry Pi is about as far removed from that as it's possible to get.

Who are these people who play around pretending to be all hardcore by buying barebone systems, and then stick corporate cubicle-farm BS like C# or Java on them?

Wake me up when there's a kernelspace FORTH interpreter. Linux? Pah.

Oh, and get off my lawn.

How is this techy news worthy? (4, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | about 2 years ago | (#39880327)

What they're saying is that a small form factor device that is supposed to run Linux runs software that Linux can run now.

Wow, that's news? I'd say it's a test case. yes there may be hardware differences but those should be minimal and this would be a porting effort.

The topic should be "Raspberry Pi runs software it's supposed to."

Re:How is this techy news worthy? (1)

PCM2 (4486) | about 2 years ago | (#39881003)

I guess the telling part is that Java is supposed to be a language that's "write once, run anywhere," but in reality Java developers can't be certain that a substantial Java library from Oracle itself will even compile or run on any particular platform. Turns out it did this time.

Not exactly Quake3 (2)

mdragan (1166333) | about 2 years ago | (#39880391)

Well, it's a clock. One that's not running very smoothly.
At least they manage to use up the whole CPU for drawing some arcs, that must be a incredible accomplishment.
Reminds me of the 8bit computer days when some were using fast asm routines to draw circles, some were doing it painfully slow with BASIC.

Skype (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39880511)

All I really want is Skype on the Raspberry Pi . I wonder if they will get it running on the Pi.

Precedent for cloning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39880987)

If the blurb at [1], and the retort at [2] are to be believed, then anyone in the US should be able to clone an API without worrying about litigation.

I could be wrong, though.

[1] Google for "Express Logic Clears the Air Regarding Ruling on Copyright Infringement Claim Against u-velOSity RTOS"
[2] www DOT ghs DOT com SLASH news SLASH 20060616_expresslogic DOT html

I was going to post 2 URLs, although SlashDot's CMS, and servers are failing miserably in terms of functionality...

Raspberry Pi, Qt 5, QML, Shaders (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39881681)

Donald Carr demonstrates where the party's at. It's not JavaFX.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-vBbqamNBU

Funny (1)

Vahokif (1292866) | about 2 years ago | (#39882267)

Don't you think it's funny that all the Boycott Novell doomsayers were saying Mono was a Microsoft trap every time it was mentioned and now their beloved Java is the reason someone is actually getting sued?

Just what I always wanted (1)

scourfish (573542) | about 2 years ago | (#39882391)

I've waited for so long for JavaFX - the same software framework that adds bloat and makes both my cable box and my Blu Ray player take a gazillion years to boot up and has slow menus that take the same time to display as a 386 running a copy of Windows 3.1 - to run on my embedded hobbyist devices.

Use Java And Be Sued (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39882825)

That is the message of Mr Larry. But there are lots of sheep around who don't understand, yet.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...