> Basically you want free beer like Linux? Get a distribution from OpenJDK.
After the Oracle lawsuit, why should people feel safe believing that Oracle will respect the terms of the license instead of trying to extract more money and subject you to a costly lawsuit?
That's still not an answer. You're avoiding the question and... I don't know, answering some other question that no one asked, it looks like.
If a company has the option between OpenJDK and its "free" license or paying Oracle for a different license, why would anyone feel safe choosing the former, given that when you deal with Oracle, you deal with the risk of wasting as much money or more to defend yourself in court than the price of Oracle's paid option? Open source licenses are only as good as as the belief by the licensing party that the terms of the license mean anything.
Once again, you have avoided the question (although you've spiced it up this time with some additional condescension).
You listed OpenJDK as a viable "free" option. Defend it, or don't, but stop trying to pivot the conversation while pretending that changing the subject is a valid answer answer to the thing that was asked.
There is no confusion on this end. You're ignoring the question that I'm asking, because the answer is unpleasant, and you're instead responding with non-answers, because looking like you're saying something when you're really saying nothing is easier.
Facts: We have evidence that Oracle doesn't care about the actual terms of GPL. We have evidence that they're willing to subject people to legal turmoil if Oracle decides they want you to pay instead of using the "free" license.
> Defend it, or don't, but stop trying to pivot the conversation while pretending that changing the subject is a valid answer answer to the thing that was asked.
> With an internal repository, everyone in your enterprise will be able to view the Page with the same credentials they use to login to github.com
Public service announcement: "login" is a noun; as a verb, you should write "log in". (Consider "knockout" vs. "knock out".) Another thing to watch out for: writing "setup" instead of "set up".
I can get on board with 99% of that as being stuff a style guide can reasonably standardize for organizational voice, but the one thing that doesn't sit well with me is preferring "in to" over "into" in the second example at the end: "Learn how to sign in to Power BI" seems like it wants to use "into" for the same reason we would use that compound word any other time it should be used.
Perhaps my grammer isn't as sharp as it should be, but I don't understand how "go in" would be any different. We say "please go in" and "please go into the room" without any issues, I think. What is fundamentally different between "sign in" and "go in" leading to this style guide not also discouraging "go into?"
I don't interpret a meaningful difference between "can not" and "cannot," nor between "any more" and "anymore;" thus, I don't find a meaningful difference between "in to" and "into."
Similar logic comes into play with mic (noun) and mike (verb). "They miked (or they're miking) the drums with several mics."
We avoid mic (verb) because the "k" works so much better than "c" when leading into various verb endings like -ed and -ing. It's the same reason we add "k" to the word traffic to form words like trafficking; we would interpret the "c" softly ("s" sound) if it was followed by a vowel. But in this case we replace it with "k" instead of adding "k" to maintain the long "i" which would shorten if followed by more than one consonant.
Mic (noun only) is great as a truncation of microphone, though.
Wow, thank you for clarifying this. I was actually wondering about this yesterday and just figured they could be used interchangeably but I also knew that in certain cases writing it a certain way just made more sense but I never knew the noun/verb rule behind it. I feel stupid now lol.
And here I thought I was the only one who still cared about this, given how often I see it the verb form written as a noun. The English language evolves, however, and I'm coming to accept that this one is well on its way to being considered correct usage, so I'm doing my best not to let it bother me.
This comment is playing fast and loose with the facts. No part of Oracle's suit against Google relied on the claim that "Java wasn't open-source at the time Google copied it" (for good reason).
> they are really bad at shepharding, just look at the state of android java vs openjdk
This has nothing to do with copyright law―the thing that Google was sued for. There is no legal argument in this remark (which is the problem with about half the comments that appear saying that Google was in the wrong), just an assertion based on an appeal to emotion that Google deserved to be sued, and then working backwards from there to present a half-formed argument.
> No part of Oracle's suit against Google relied on the claim that "Java wasn't open-source at the time Google copied it"
It had a specific license explicitly disallowing mobile use. Everything else is irrelevant - google knowingly broke the license, didn’t they?
This is copyright infringement.
As for whether their copy of Java’s API at the time could constitute fair use and thus not subject to copyright law is up to debate and my personal opinion doesn’t matter on it.
> It had a specific license explicitly disallowing mobile use. Everything else is irrelevant...
The Java Specification explicitly allows people to re-implement the Java Language as long as they follow a few guidelines (which google allegedly did not, hence the lawsuit) -- even if they decide to target a mobile platform.
This is a perplexing response. Oracle's case against Google is about copyright infringement. On that point, you are correct, but that's where your comments part from reality.
Oracle in its case against Google is not arguing that "Java wasn't open-source at the time Google copied it". Oracle in its case against Google is not arguing that there was "a specific license explicitly disallowing mobile use". You on the other hand are arguing these things. That's where the problem lies: you're asserting infringement based on two fact claims that don't even match what Oracle's legal team presented to the courts.
(For that reason, your remark that "Everything else is irrelevant" is just bizarre and ironic—it's your comments here that are irrelevant... _None_ of the things you're saying are what the case is actually about.)
Here are some simple questions: to what extent does your knowledge of Oracle v. Google originate from secondary analysis and commentary about the case vs. direct knowledge (e.g. the briefs and testimony provided by Oracle and those who testified)? Do you have any firsthand experience reviewing the material that was presented in/to the courts? This is the problem with Internet peanut galleries. The answer to the last question can be solid "no", and yet commenters are undeterred from spewing nonsense from their gut that has no basis in reality.
About your last paragraph, I did try to get as close to primary sources as possible, without digging into the actual briefs, and I am no lawyer, so my understanding on these topics have a shaky foundation.
But if you have done so, at least you as a presumably secondhand information source, could you give me a rebuttal on why am I wrong?
Just like your last message[1], the answer is "but why male models?" (in other words, I just answered that[2]; do you want me to repeat it[3] or something?)
There's no reason to think that you're safe even if it were Apache-licensed. One of the things that was made clear in Oracle v. Google is that Oracle effectively treats litigation as an essential expense for exploring all revenue sources, leaving others susceptible to suits whether they have merit or not. Compounding this latter concern was that another thing made clear is that the terms of the respective licenses is something that Oracle doesn't consider important. Refer to McNealy testifying for example that commercial use of even GPL-licensed work is prohibited (despite the terms of the license not supporting this stance).
Oracle v. Google has nothing to do with it (Java’s licence at the time explicitly disallowed mobile usage)
Do you have an examples that give rise to any sort of concern about the usage of GPL-licenced code (regardless of code owner)?
It's like we're not even having the same conversation. McNealy, founder of Sun, testified under oath that GPL doesn't permit commercial use. What was unclear about this the first time it was stated?
This is an argument about checked indexing, not about where indexing should start; after all, whatever the index base, you still need to check that the index fits within the bounds of the array. It doesn’t matter if a behaviour is technically deterministic and defined if it’s not what you want to happen. I mean, just read the explanation of the ‘wat’ talk: <https://stackoverflow.com/a/9033306/3840170>. Every one of these behaviours is defined by the ECMAScript standard, but they’re still useless.
Yes, but checked indexing requires only one comparison with the upper limit when your indices are 0-based, instead of 2 comparisons, when the starting index is different from 0.
The sign of the index can be determined without a comparison, usually simultaneously with one of the previous operations.
The unintuitive step is apparently identifying the index with the cardinality of the collection from before the item arrives, not after it arrives – i.e. ‘the n-th element is the one that arrived after I had n elements’, not ‘the n-th element is the one such that I had n elements after it arrived’. The former identification results in 0-based ordinals, the latter leads to 1-based ordinals – and to some misconceptions about infinity, such as imagining an element ‘at index infinity’ in an infinite list, where no such need to exist.
It's only an ordinal because we've confused ourselves into saying it can be. It's the same situation as with starting to count from zero in most programming languages, and from the wikipedia page for "0th", it appears to actually be the effect of an influence of those artificial language choices onto the mathematical concept of ordinal. After all, it is in the end just a convention, and we could start calling the first element of a sequence "the zeroth" instead, but there would be no benefit for it at the language level - which is where it matters. These artificial languages we're creating should try to mold themselves to how we already use language, but the opposte is what's been happening to some degree.
Zero- versus one-based indexing actually matters somewhat for correctness. The real trivial ‘small syntactic technical’ bikeshedding is braces versus indentation (and: which kind of indentation) or semicolons versus no semicolons.
Semicolons vs. end of line (like in Python) has a significant difference on what kinds of things you can express. End of line based syntax strongly discorages long lines, what brings problems and benefits. (And the Javascript choice is simply wrong.)
Semicolons vs. indentation structure (like in Haskell) has a huge usability difference in interactive shell. It's trivial on editor code.
The dismissal of syntax as trivial is not a good line of thinking. Syntax tends to have surprising impacts on semantics.
After the Oracle lawsuit, why should people feel safe believing that Oracle will respect the terms of the license instead of trying to extract more money and subject you to a costly lawsuit?