Linux and Open Source

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols & Paula Rooney

Google makes a risky play for the gallery

By | August 30, 2010, 5:27am PDT

Summary: Google made Java better, which is technically a good thing. But it did so in a legally questionable way.

The Great Google is wearing sackcloth and ashes this week, whipping up public resentment against legal rival Oracle by staying away from JavaOne, and quietly encouraging sales of James Gosling’s nifty anti-Oracle t-shirts. (Picture from Cafepress.)

But in publicly portraying itself as the Luke Skywalker of open source (and Larry Ellison as Darth Vader) Google is taking a risk. That’s right, someone might find out Oracle is its father. That would be a real disturbance in the force.

The problem, as Bruce Perens makes clear at his blog, is that this lawsuit isn’t really about open source. Google deliberately violated the patent freedom grant given by Sun, using a user interface toolkit not found in Java ME or Java SE.

Java on the web doesn’t seem to have the problems that Google built into Android, its users can stay within the patent grant without trouble.

Oops. Instead, Android implements the Dalvik Virtual Machine, recompiling  the Harmony class libraries on Apache’s version of Java SE. It then targets the new version at the same markets Oracle has identified.

Or, as Charles Nutter notes in his excellent summation of the issues, “Dalvik is not a JVM…it just plays one on TV.” Google made Java better, which is technically a good thing. But it did so in a legally questionable way.

One point even the fiercest open source advocates will insist on is that your rights to change code are not unlimited. They are defined by a license. If Google tweaked a proprietary version of Java it may lack the commercial rights to what it has done.

In other words, as painful as it may be admit this, Oracle may indeed have a case even Richard Stallman is bound to respect.

Google, who’s your daddy?

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for 30 years, a tech freelancer since 1983.

Disclosure

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a journalist, writer and part-time futurist for over 30 years.

At the present moment I run only a personal blog in addition to my ZDNet open source blog.

DanaBlankenhorn.Com has the subtitle The War Against Oil. In the past I have used it to write about political history, e-commerce, personal matters, some ideas related to open source, and The World of Always On, which is the idea of using sensors, motes and RFID to turn WiFi links into platforms for applications which live in the air.

My IRA account at Schwab holds a few tech shares, most notably some Intel and Applied Materials, but there are no open source companies in it. I don’t even own any CBS stock.

Biography

Dana Blankenhorn

Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for nearly 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the Interactive Age Daily for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age's "NetMarketing" supplement, and dozens of other publications over the years.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
12
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Google makes a risky play for the gallery
musdahi Updated - 19th Sep
Google makes a risky play for the about it is bank that website attacked from the site support from any soldier site to the light home page is great gallery
0 Votes
+ -


The fact that making something better could be illegal is exactly the problem.
0 Votes
+ -
Google makes a risky play for the about it is bank that website attacked from the site support from any soldier site to the light home page is great gallery
0 Votes
+ -
Well, I guess we know now why they have two mobile OS's.
0 Votes
+ -
*Questionable* Logic
JohnVoter 30th Aug 2010
?Dalvik is not a JVM?it just plays one on TV.?

Maybe the author should read that quote again. Davlik is not the Java Virtual Machine. ANDROID IS NOT RUNNING JAVA.

Google has built a new programming platform WITH A VIRTUAL MACHINE CODE TRANSLATOR ADDED ON TOP.

Therefore, the Java licensing is utterly and completely irrelevant. This fact, which appears to have flown right over the author's understanding, cuts both ways.

On the one hand, Google has no obligation to reduce the functionality of Android to please Oracle. On the other hand, the Java licensing agreement -- which does not apply here -- provides legal access to some of Oracle's software patents.

Hence the heart of Oracle's case against Google is the question of these software patents. My reading of legal opinions outside this forum indicates that Oracle's case is rather weak, in that it makes technical assumptions about how Android works which are invalid.
0 Votes
+ -
thats not the point, the point is they took (copied) (now) oracles ip and put it in their non java runtime....
0 Votes
+ -
Make up your own facts, eh?
JohnVoter 30th Aug 2010
@Johnny Vegas
Sorry about your clueless state. The Android platform -- with the exception of the Apache library -- was written by a team in a "cleanroom" environment. No IP was copied.

The Apache library was written as an open source project without copying Oracle's IP.

So buy a clue, friend. Google is smarter than you are, and protected themselves legally.
0 Votes
+ -
GPL v3 is enough to make the patents moot.
If java uses GPL v3, Oracle has no basis for the lawsuit.
0 Votes
+ -
@Linux Geek

Moot point - they used GPL v2
0 Votes
+ -
@Linux Geek
I'm not following it that closely, but my understanding is that the problem is that Google took the non-GPL version and reverse engineered it to their needs, because the GPL version was not suitable and would have required app developers to GPL their code too, which few app developers would have gone along with. Since it is not the Java sourcecode itself that has been misappropriated, but reverse-engineered code, it is a Patent suit, not a Copyright suit.
0 Votes
+ -
You understand. Well stated.
JohnVoter 30th Aug 2010
@msandersen
0 Votes
+ -
Java SE apps - not Java ME.
0 Votes
+ -
That's what I thought
Roger Ramjet 30th Aug 2010
@Roger Ramjet

I guess I'm one of the millions that thought that Android was Java-based. I acted on this belief when I purchased an Android tablet. I wanted to run a Java app on it and it never occurred to me once that it wouldn't run there. After much research, I found that you can re-compile Java ME apps to run on Dalvik - but I found nothing on Java SE apps.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix