This is coming from a whole lot more than just Google. They are the ones who will lose money in the immediate lawsuit, but we all stand to suffer if Oracle's interpretation of the law is held up. Don't take my word for it, take the word of the entire software community who has weighed in on this to support google in the form of amicus briefs (which I really do encourage you to read).
Here is a partial list of other groups who have already filed motions in support of Google: Microsoft, EFF, Python Software Foundation, Mozilla, RedHat, (see the docket for a complete list).
In addition their was a very interesting brief submitted by a bunch of famous computer scientists, instead of an organized company. The names attatched included Edwin Catmull, Alan Kay, Brian Kernighan, Bjarne Stroustrup, Andrew Tanenbaum, Ken Thompson, Guido van Rossum, Steve Wozniak. The total list of people is 78 long and they are all of similar caliber (though I did pick out the names I had the strongest recognition for), see their brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-956/89487/20190...)
This case isn't about Google making or loosing some money, Google being open or not. None of the amici care about that, the supreme court doesn't care about that. Only Google and Oracle care about that. This case is about the law that governs us all and what effects it has on us all.
And yes, Microsoft is agreeing with the EFF in a lawsuit...
> This case isn't about Google making or loosing some money, Google being open or not. None of the amici care about that, the supreme court doesn't care about that. Only Google and Oracle care about that.
... I don't think there's much support here for Oracle winning on its claims.
But this particular subthread was pointing out the hypocrisy of Google trumpeting "Openness in all cases!"
These are two separate and unrelated topics. We can simultaneously support Google winning the case (for the outcome on case law) while also believing Google could be a better corporate steward of open source (mostly looking at you, Android).
> Android's source code does not contain the device drivers, often proprietary, that are needed for certain hardware components. As a result, most Android devices, including Google's own, ship with a combination of free and open source and proprietary software, with the software required for accessing Google services falling into the latter category.
I don't think anyone expects the Android OS to be a collection of entirely open source device drivers.
Those proprietary drivers are specific to the myriad of hardware that the OEMs are running the OS on. You can still run Android on any hardware you have the drivers for, or emulate it in a virtual machine.
Google has systematically moved a lot of apps from AOSP to closed source Play Store equivalents. The AOSP apps are still available, but aren't maintained by Google anymore.
I very strongly support Google’s side of this case. But them claiming to champion open innovation is incredibly condescending and frankly bullshit. They’re pursuing this case exclusively for financial motives (which I don’t think there’s anything wrong with to be clear). But the fact that there’s some public good behind it is just a happy coincidence for their marketing department. They’d just as happily be on Oracle’s side if that made financial sense to them.
A lot of the modern web exists on tech that google open sourced. Something it didn't need to do and would have been a huge competitive advantage to it if they had kept it closed source even after they had moved on to something better.
Here is a partial list of other groups who have already filed motions in support of Google: Microsoft, EFF, Python Software Foundation, Mozilla, RedHat, (see the docket for a complete list).
In addition their was a very interesting brief submitted by a bunch of famous computer scientists, instead of an organized company. The names attatched included Edwin Catmull, Alan Kay, Brian Kernighan, Bjarne Stroustrup, Andrew Tanenbaum, Ken Thompson, Guido van Rossum, Steve Wozniak. The total list of people is 78 long and they are all of similar caliber (though I did pick out the names I had the strongest recognition for), see their brief: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-956/89487/20190...)
This case isn't about Google making or loosing some money, Google being open or not. None of the amici care about that, the supreme court doesn't care about that. Only Google and Oracle care about that. This case is about the law that governs us all and what effects it has on us all.
And yes, Microsoft is agreeing with the EFF in a lawsuit...