26

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Cyberax, you wrote: the C> If will be created precedent all API will be subject copyright'. Means, IBM will own copyright' on ALL variants SQL as they implemented its the first and own registered copyright' on it. So nobody will hinder them to take money from you personally. A C> And without a difference that MySQL does not contain also a line of the code written IBM. Correct, if I am mistaken, but the claim of Orakla was to standard library . What for you  here a language syntax? A C>>> But yes, I understand that the main thing that to Google it was bad. You not from Ukraine write? S>> not, not from Ukraine. A C> I about: "At the neighbor a cow . A trifle, and it is pleasant". Not... Google to me not the neighbor, and corporation which I absolutely sincerely wish all most the worst. You can as much as necessary here  , but it does not change the simple fact that Google became impudent and thus for a long time did not receive from supervising organs.

27

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, IID, you wrote: IID> Hello, turbocode, you wrote: T>> Google weaklings, did not master the compiler With ++. IID> what for it the when is clang/gcc IID> which, by the way, rather  in . IID> the Toad there for  , which today 95 % among programmers. Write on pluses can not only only all. The success  completely confirms this hypothesis. On what still to write under , if not on java/kotlin?

28

Re: Google vs. Oracle

S>> Well so it is problems IBM and SQL? If it is valid at IBM there is a copyright and the appropriate license. There is somewhere a license in public access? Cs> IBM invented SQL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL#History), means have on it copyright. Accordingly, have the right to demand to license ALL derivative implementations. And if the derivative product does not have license and to demand money from ultimate users. So why do not demand? The can because at each company SQL which a little another than at IBM.

29

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Cyberax, you wrote: a C> Hello, turbocode, you wrote:>>> And here on SQL the license from IBM nobody gave a C. So now it is possible to take ANY user SQL for . T>> SQL it is idea, instead of implementation. Cs> Spasibo Oraklu, now ideas can get under copyright. Here still that. Till now there was a sharing on patents and a copyright. Patents were on ideas (roughly speaking if not to go into subtleties), but all of them have restricted period of validity in 20 years (sometimes to 25, but it it is subtleties) and not all countries admit and not everywhere  the patent for ideas for a software to receive. Some patents for a software already ended (on mp3 for example) the Copyright, on the contrary, "eternal", but only on specific implementation. The Oracle if I correctly understood, actually crossed patents and a copyright, achieving copyright protection of ideas, and it generally is capable to defile the IT world completely.

30

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Cyberax, you wrote: Cs> IBM invented SQL (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL#History), means have on it copyright. Accordingly, have the right to demand to license ALL derivative implementations. And if the derivative product does not have license and to demand money from ultimate users. What for though you so carped to SQL-lju? IBM is not "legal owner" SQL as that is open standard ANSI/ISO. Esteem about standardization and a failure from the rights. The C> As to  Oracle still fell nobody, it did not excite anybody. As only the idiot can consider that API can be under copyright'. Only the person not knowing laws, can consider that API cannot be under copyright'. The C> Well so instead of is a shame for stealing then SQL at IBM? It too API and it steal generally all. You do not wish to understand why it is impossible to Google . And why  cannot condemn anybody for writing of programs under Windows. And here for implementation FAT can. Cs> They can  API from RPM, for example. RedHat and so is legal owner API from RPM (in him of the first reincarnation). But here the paradox, can condemn nobody.... In it and a difference between yours "all disappeared" and violation of the law by Google.

31

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, IID, you wrote: IID> the Toad there for  , which today 95 % among programmers. Write on pluses can not only only all. The success  completely confirms this hypothesis. Well, here I  did not master this. Well as, pair of programs wrote, but emetic reflexes could not suppress more. There would be there pluses, it would be easier

32

Re: Google vs. Oracle

IID>> the Toad there for  , which today 95 % among programmers. Write on pluses can not only only all. The success  completely confirms this hypothesis. M> well, here I  did not master this. Well as, pair of programs wrote, but emetic reflexes could not suppress more. There would be there pluses, it would be easier Pluses there too is but too through an ass because of that that in Google did not master With ++.

33

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, m2l, you wrote: m2l> What for though you so carped to SQL-lju? IBM is not "legal owner" SQL as that is open standard ANSI/ISO. Esteem about standardization and a failure from the rights. Now is. IBM is not the standard creator (interested persons can download and check up it), specially glanced in our basis of standards. So ISO in any way does not grant the right to steal results of work of the commercial companies. You think, if Zimbabwe creates the standard on "Windows 10 for PC" it will be possible free of charge it ? The C>> As to  Oracle still fell nobody, it did not excite anybody. As only the idiot can consider that API can be under copyright'. m2l> Only the person not knowing laws, can consider that API cannot be under copyright'. Aha, be going to send checks in IBM for SQL. And SCO for Linux. How many wonderful discoveries will be! I think, what even API for printf to someone belongs. The C>> Well so instead of is a shame for stealing then SQL at IBM? It too API and it steal generally all. m2l> you do not wish to understand why it is impossible to Google . And why  cannot condemn anybody for writing of programs under Windows. And here for implementation FAT can. There is a difference. FAT32 it is patented, and this patent already effused. And it is now "prior art" for any similar implementations. And here SQL is under copyright' which can lasts till 175 years and will "infect" any derivative product. Cs>> They can  API from RPM, for example. m2l> RedHat and so is legal owner API from RPM (in him of the first reincarnation). But here the paradox, can condemn nobody.... It is the FIRST process on copyright' on API.

34

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Cyberax, you wrote: the C> is Now. The C> IBM is not the standard creator (interested persons can download and check up it), specially glanced in our basis of standards. So ISO in any way does not grant the right to steal results of work of the commercial companies. You think, if Zimbabwe creates the standard on "Windows 10 for PC" it will be possible free of charge it ? You policy ISO in the field of intellectual property rights esteem. And the question why IBM cannot has legal proceedings with Oracle/Microsoft disappears itself. m2l>> only the person not knowing laws, can consider that API cannot be under copyright'. A C> Aha, be going to send checks in IBM for SQL. And SCO for Linux. You will not check, but POSIX it too the standard.... And it too can be implemented free of charge and without demand SCO. The C> How many wonderful discoveries will be! I think, what even API for printf to someone belongs. Yes, belongs. And you posess not an exclusive right to make own implementation of the interface printf and to sell it for money. Because standard ANSI a C. The C> And here SQL is under copyright' which can lasts till 175 years and will "infect" any derivative product. That that it is under a copyright does not cancel that the owner of a copyright granted the irrevocable right to you to use result of the work, standardizing an ANSI SQL. Cs>>> They can  API from RPM, for example. m2l>> RedHat and so is legal owner API from RPM (in him of the first reincarnation). But here the paradox, can condemn nobody.... The C> Is the FIRST process on copyright' on API. Aha, Google probably the first who so in the impudent stole another's property. In the presence of standards for which it is not necessary to pay. At possibility to make something the. At possibility for copecks to buy the license at Sun. And yes, we return to a question, what law deduces API from under action of laws on intellectual property? What in API such that is not present in the simple source code?

35

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, m2l, you wrote: m2l> You policy ISO in the field of intellectual property rights esteem. And the question why IBM cannot has legal proceedings with Oracle/Microsoft disappears itself. Once again. IBM is not the creator of standard SQL. Independent committee ISO to which IBM did not give their right of use SQL API was engaged in it. A C>> Aha, be going to send checks in IBM for SQL. And SCO for Linux. m2l> You will not check, but POSIX it too the standard.... And it too can be implemented free of charge and without demand SCO. Already it is impossible. SCO owns the standard on Unix which Linux implements. In Linux is not present lines of the code from SCO, but at it same API in many places.  thieves! The C>> How many wonderful discoveries will be! I think, what even API for printf to someone belongs. m2l> yes, belongs. And you posess not an exclusive right to make own implementation of the interface printf and to sell it for money. Because standard ANSI a C. . At ANSI hardly there is a license from the initial author printf. The C>> And here SQL is under copyright' which can lasts till 175 years and will "infect" any derivative product. m2l> that that it is under a copyright does not cancel that the owner of a copyright granted the irrevocable right to you to use result of the work, standardizing an ANSI SQL. So after all did not give. The C>> Is the FIRST process on copyright' on API. m2l> Aha, Google probably the first who so in the impudent stole another's property. In the presence of standards for which it is not necessary to pay. At possibility to make something the. At possibility for copecks to buy the license at Sun. Well so I do not see checks for licenses on SQL and Unix from you here. Where? How many still it is possible to steal result of work IBM impudently! m2l> And yes, we return to a question, what law deduces API from under action of laws on intellectual property? What in API such that is not present in the simple source code? https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case … mp;scilh=0

36

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Cyberax, you wrote: a C> Once again. IBM is not the creator of standard SQL. Independent committee ISO to which IBM did not give their right of use SQL API was engaged in it. The C> Already is impossible. SCO owns the standard on Unix which Linux implements. In Linux is not present lines of the code from SCO, but at it same API in many places. A C> Get of thieves! A C> Nea. At ANSI hardly there is a license from the initial author printf. The C> So after all did not give. Once again. ANSI/ISO do not develop standards but only states. A part of committee developing standard SQL itself IBM. Thus the company transferred intellectual property rights of use which has been stated in the standard. And now IBM for SQL anybody cannot condemn. The same situation from a C, Pascal, JavaScript, C# and still a heap of technologies. But not with Java, the open which standard is not present. You can make own DBMS implementing SQL, can write the compiler Si or Pascal. But here you cannot write the compiler Java, without buying the license at Sun/Oracle. A C> Well so I do not see checks for licenses on SQL and Unix from you here. Where? How many still it is possible to steal result of work IBM impudently! Also note, despite yours howl, it is not spread in any way to users API, only on those who implements the copy of interfaces which are not stated by standards. m2l>> and yes, we return to a question, what law deduces API from under action of laws on intellectual property? What in API such that is not present in the simple source code? A C> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case … mp;scilh=0 Also note, about this trial you know, and all the same you say that you want to pay for SQL...

37

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, serb, you wrote: S> It stole API classes: S> https://developer.android.com/reference … tring.html Here it is absolutely not clear. This API (which String) sits in openjdk hundred years.

38

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Cyberax, you wrote: a C> But yes, I understand that the main thing that to Google it was bad. You not from Ukraine write? Personally I want to pay  for a software but that it worked normally, instead of was engaged in information collection about me - as it does ostensibly a free software.

39

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Cyberax, you wrote: a C> Yes generally, continuous . Write requests on SQL, without giving the grandma to legal owners who SQL developed this, nonstop. On SQL all periods of patenting ended for a long time. 35 years already transited, a minimum.

40

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, LaPerouse, you wrote: LP> Here it is absolutely not clear. This API (which String) sits in openjdk hundred years. On idea only with 2007 and openjdk created itself sun. Plus as far as I know between Sun and community OpenJDK the agreement, including on the non-exclusive license in those days has been entered into. If in Android was OpenJDK the Oracle could not submit this claim. In my opinion Google vs Oracle very similar on Microsoft vs Sun. Only this time lawyers it is better at the first side.

41

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Glory, you wrote: a C>> Yes generally, continuous . Write requests on SQL, without giving the grandma to legal owners who SQL developed this, nonstop. On SQL all periods of patenting ended for a long time. 35 years already transited, a minimum. Copyright 100 years on the operations created by the commercial companies last. Still your grandsons so will pay.

42

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, m2l, you wrote: m2l> Once again. ANSI/ISO do not develop standards but only states. It not so, well is fine. m2l> a part of committee developing standard SQL itself IBM. Was not. I looked specially. A C>> Well so I do not see checks for licenses on SQL and Unix from you here. Where? How many still it is possible to steal result of work IBM impudently! m2l> Also note, despite yours howl, it is not spread in any way to users API, only on those who implements the copy of interfaces which are not stated by standards. It is spread. Simply for the present anybody did not start to judge. m2l>>> and yes, we return to a question, what law deduces API from under action of laws on intellectual property? What in API such that is not present in the simple source code? A C>> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case … mp;scilh=0 m2l> Also note, about this trial you know, and all the same you say that you want to pay for SQL... Well so now there is a precedent about the reverse. Be going to pay.

43

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Glory, you wrote: a C>> But yes, I understand that the main thing that to Google it was bad. You not from Ukraine write? Personally I want to pay  for a software but that it worked normally, instead of was engaged in information collection about me - as it does ostensibly a free software. Well here it is remarkable, will pay for a software to such companies, as SCO and IBM. I think that else from tens others too is.

44

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Kolesiki, you wrote: A>> will rivet to nobody the necessary shovels with Vedroidom A full of holes>> the Market it is so sated  with the debugged process  "L" - logic

45

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Cyberax, you wrote: a C> Hello, m2l, you wrote: m2l>> Once again. ANSI/ISO do not develop standards but only states. A C> It not so, well is fine. ANSI: Overview of the U.S. Standardization System 3 paragraph. And about what to you still to talk? The C> was not. I looked specially. The C> Is spread. Simply for the present anybody did not start to judge. See above.

46

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, m2l, you wrote: m2l> ANSI: Overview of the U.S. Standardization System m2l> 3 paragraph. m2l> and about what with you still to talk? ISO IEC develops, in the form of international working group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_J … nd_mission the C>> was not. I looked specially. The C>> Is spread. Simply for the present anybody did not start to judge. m2l> see above. See that I wrote about that IBM did not allow resolution ISO to use SQL API. All. That it standardized that changes of nothing.

47

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Cyberax, you wrote:> Personally I want to pay  for a software but that it worked normally, instead of was engaged in information collection about me - as it does ostensibly a free software. A C> Well here it is remarkable, will pay for a software to such companies, as SCO and IBM. I think that else from tens others too is. I think, in that case development from zero, and here it here all very rises... H'm, exulting  and overcast, it evaporates.

48

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Cyberax, you wrote: S>> JRE use for embedded devices or use of commercial features may require a license fee from Oracle. Read more about embedded use of Java SE or contact your local Oracle sales representative to obtain a license." S>> Amazon in this case decided to steal nothing and for the jvm uses openjdk with all that it implies. The C> I did not look in all devices in Amazone, but built in Java I did not see anywhere. Thus that I looked source codes of all Echo and Cloud Cam. Therefore Amazon also does not pay and uses normal OpenJDK. If used that would pay. A C> Normal JDK in Amazone it is ubiquitous. Passage to own version OpenJDK only began literally couple of months back. The passage beginning was more year back, and unlike Google, he () decided not to write all from zero and to use OpenJDK (though he could and write  took under the wing many engineers working/working over OpenJDK). What for after all it was possible to throw out all unnecessary  from JDK? It was possible to add/expand API from JDK, it was possible not to pass the full test? It was possible to make all as made Google, but is not present.

49

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, Glory, you wrote: I Think, in that case development from zero, and here it here all very rises... H'm, exulting  and overcast, it evaporates. And here on three letters. If  API will resemble adequately one of copyright' it will be "derived work" with all that it implies.

50

Re: Google vs. Oracle

Hello, serb, you wrote: the C>> I did not look in all devices in Amazone, but built in Java I did not see anywhere. Thus that I looked source codes of all Echo and Cloud Cam. S> Therefore Amazon also does not pay and uses normal OpenJDK. If used that would pay. Until recently used normal JDK, campaign for passage on OpenJDK only began. S> what for after all it was possible to throw out all unnecessary  from JDK? It was possible to add/expand API from JDK, it was possible not to pass the full test? It was possible to make all as made Google, but is not present. In Amazone it is interesting to nobody to develop new JDK. It is banal  it is not necessary. To Google it was necessary new runtime, in 2003 year when did Android.