>Oracle overpaid for Sun for a reason, which was something of a mystery. It now appears that collecting royalties on Java used in non-GPL applications might have been the reason.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/08/oracle-sues-google-over-use-of-java-in-android-sdk.ars>
>The reason, in case you've not delved into FOSS licenses, is that any application using a component licensed under the GPL main license must itself be licensed under the main GPL license. Otherwise you pay for a commercial license, in this case to finance Larry Ellison's next boat.
>
Well, Dalvik raised a few eyebrows over here when the concepts were introduced - with the implied question on will sun react to the recompilation and/or extensions. The copyright point - IMHO meant for the SDK and if taken to extreme - would blow any idea of FOSS java out of the water. I see this (IANAL, IANAL) as red herring - if not... umhhh.... The patents I have not really checked, but the '702 might fall in the same category as I think this is implicit in the jvm-bytecode >> dalvik.
Wonder if Google will just reshuffle some Android sources and explicitly GPL or rewrite the disputed parts - as there is no "java phone OS" but only java ME implemented in most phone OS at least part is BS (but ME generated fees).
>.Net looks good by comparison, especially given the availability of Mono.
http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2010/Aug-13.htmlLooks can be deceiving [just a smartass comment with no evidence in this particular arena, just a bad taste from the IRuby happenings]
regards
thomas
