> The compiler was never the problem; the API was.
I'm aware, that's the crux of the case. I was asking you to prove the statement:
> This happened before Java went open-source.
Which you have disproved now. We have no argument there - Java was open source at the time.
> Sun offered a licensing deal of between US$30 and 50 million.
> The parties were unable to reach an agreement, in part because Google wanted device manufacturers to be able to use Oracle’s APIs in Android for free with no limits on modifying the code, which would jeopardize the “write once, run anywhere” philosophy.
They also required Google not extend the API, which is where the deal failed.
> In other words, API were not exactly free (for an outwardly noble purpose), and Google reused them before they were GPL-ed.
So far, all juries and all but one court case has found that an API is not copyright-able. We'll see, but a compatible interface doesn't appear to be something you can license.
The problem stays: the licensing terms were not clear at the time, so while the source was available for looking ("open source"), it was not free enough (required licensing). Such was the understanding of both sides, because they talked about obtaining a license.
I should have said "before Java the platform had a permissive enough license".
I'm aware, that's the crux of the case. I was asking you to prove the statement:
> This happened before Java went open-source.
Which you have disproved now. We have no argument there - Java was open source at the time.
> Sun offered a licensing deal of between US$30 and 50 million.
> The parties were unable to reach an agreement, in part because Google wanted device manufacturers to be able to use Oracle’s APIs in Android for free with no limits on modifying the code, which would jeopardize the “write once, run anywhere” philosophy.
They also required Google not extend the API, which is where the deal failed.
> In other words, API were not exactly free (for an outwardly noble purpose), and Google reused them before they were GPL-ed.
So far, all juries and all but one court case has found that an API is not copyright-able. We'll see, but a compatible interface doesn't appear to be something you can license.