| The Future of PHP [message #170972] |
Mon, 13 December 2010 11:26  |
Kevin
Messages: 2
Registered: December 2010
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Looks like there are alot of pissed off people who don't want to use
Java any longer because of Oracle's take over of Sun.
Could this ever happen to PHP ?. Who actually owns PHP ?.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #170973 is a reply to message #170972] |
Mon, 13 December 2010 12:08  |
Captain Paralytic
Messages: 204
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On Dec 13, 11:26 am, Kevin <ikevl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Looks like there are alot of pissed off people who don't want to use
> Java any longer because of Oracle's take over of Sun.
> Could this ever happen to PHP ?. Who actually owns PHP ?.
Zend?
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #170975 is a reply to message #170973] |
Mon, 13 December 2010 12:15 |
Kevin
Messages: 2
Registered: December 2010
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Dec 13, 2:08 pm, Captain Paralytic <paul_lautman(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> On Dec 13, 11:26 am, Kevin <ikevl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Looks like there are alot of pissed off people who don't want to use
>> Java any longer because of Oracle's take over of Sun.
>> Could this ever happen to PHP ?. Who actually owns PHP ?.
>
> Zend?
So if a company like Oracle had to aquire Zend, then they would be in
control of PHP.
I use Oracle as an example because of the recent takeover of SUN.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #170976 is a reply to message #170972] |
Mon, 13 December 2010 12:22 |
Luuk
Messages: 329
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 13-12-10 12:26, Kevin wrote:
> Looks like there are alot of pissed off people who don't want to use
> Java any longer because of Oracle's take over of Sun.
> Could this ever happen to PHP ?. Who actually owns PHP ?.
$ php -v
PHP 5.2.14 with Suhosin-Patch 0.9.7 (cli) (built: Nov 5 2010 10:06:32)
Copyright (c) 1997-2009 The PHP Group
Zend Engine v2.2.0, Copyright (c) 1998-2010 Zend Technologies
with Suhosin v0.9.32.1, Copyright (c) 2007-2010, by SektionEins GmbH
It show that copy right is at: 'The PHP Group'
Zend Technologies only owns the 'Zend Engine' (whatever that is ;)
more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP
--
Luuk
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #170977 is a reply to message #170973] |
Mon, 13 December 2010 12:57 |
alvaro.NOSPAMTHANX
Messages: 277
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
El 13/12/2010 13:08, Captain Paralytic escribió/wrote:
> On Dec 13, 11:26 am, Kevin<ikevl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Looks like there are alot of pissed off people who don't want to use
>> Java any longer because of Oracle's take over of Sun.
>> Could this ever happen to PHP ?. Who actually owns PHP ?.
>
> Zend?
I found the question interesting. The only direct reference to Zend I
could find is related to the Zend Engine, which is copyrighted by Zend
Technologies. While it's the base of the language (from what I
understand, it's the parser that transform PHP code into machine
instructions), it's *not* the same as the language itself. The PHP
codebase is open source though copyrighted by "The PHP Group". The
php.net domain is registered by "PHP Development Team" (with the PHP
creator Rasmus Lerdorf as administrative contact). I don't know where to
research whether "PHP" is a registered trademark or what kind of
organization "The PHP Group" is in legal terms.
My educated guess is that Zend does not own PHP at all but it could
probably kill it if it wanted to.
--
-- http://alvaro.es - Álvaro G. Vicario - Burgos, Spain
-- Mi sitio sobre programación web: http://borrame.com
-- Mi web de humor satinado: http://www.demogracia.com
--
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #170989 is a reply to message #170976] |
Tue, 14 December 2010 03:42 |
Adam Harvey
Messages: 25
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:22:15 +0100, Luuk wrote:
> On 13-12-10 12:26, Kevin wrote:
>> Looks like there are alot of pissed off people who don't want to use
>> Java any longer because of Oracle's take over of Sun. Could this ever
>> happen to PHP ?. Who actually owns PHP ?.
>
> It show that copy right is at: 'The PHP Group'
Yep, the copyright is held by the PHP Group, as listed at
http://www.php.net/credits.php. As far as I know, there's no particular
organisational structure to that beyond it being a loose group of
developers who have made key contributions to PHP over a long period of
time.
> Zend Technologies only owns the 'Zend Engine' (whatever that is ;)
The Zend Engine is the core runtime engine that parses and executes your
PHP code. As noted, the copyright to that is owned by Zend Technologies,
but as with the rest of PHP, it's made available under a liberal open
source licence.
In short, there's no real way PHP as a whole could be bought by a company
à la Java, because it's not owned by a singular entity as it is, and all
of the components are licensed under an Apache-like licence.
Adam
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #170990 is a reply to message #170989] |
Tue, 14 December 2010 04:57 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 12/13/2010 10:42 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:22:15 +0100, Luuk wrote:
>> On 13-12-10 12:26, Kevin wrote:
>>> Looks like there are alot of pissed off people who don't want to use
>>> Java any longer because of Oracle's take over of Sun. Could this ever
>>> happen to PHP ?. Who actually owns PHP ?.
>>
>> It show that copy right is at: 'The PHP Group'
>
> Yep, the copyright is held by the PHP Group, as listed at
> http://www.php.net/credits.php. As far as I know, there's no particular
> organisational structure to that beyond it being a loose group of
> developers who have made key contributions to PHP over a long period of
> time.
>
>> Zend Technologies only owns the 'Zend Engine' (whatever that is ;)
>
> The Zend Engine is the core runtime engine that parses and executes your
> PHP code. As noted, the copyright to that is owned by Zend Technologies,
> but as with the rest of PHP, it's made available under a liberal open
> source licence.
>
> In short, there's no real way PHP as a whole could be bought by a company
> à la Java, because it's not owned by a singular entity as it is, and all
> of the components are licensed under an Apache-like licence.
>
> Adam
No, but without an engine, PHP is pretty worthless.
Of course, if someone ever bought out Zend and terminated everyone's PHP
license, a bunch of programmers could spend the next 3-4 years putting
together another engine and getting it to run. But by then PHP would be
dead anyway.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #170995 is a reply to message #170990] |
Tue, 14 December 2010 13:48 |
Magno
Messages: 49
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Member |
|
|
On 12/14/2010 01:57 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 12/13/2010 10:42 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:22:15 +0100, Luuk wrote:
>>> On 13-12-10 12:26, Kevin wrote:
>>>> Looks like there are alot of pissed off people who don't want to use
>>>> Java any longer because of Oracle's take over of Sun. Could this ever
>>>> happen to PHP ?. Who actually owns PHP ?.
>>>
>>> It show that copy right is at: 'The PHP Group'
>>
>> Yep, the copyright is held by the PHP Group, as listed at
>> http://www.php.net/credits.php. As far as I know, there's no particular
>> organisational structure to that beyond it being a loose group of
>> developers who have made key contributions to PHP over a long period of
>> time.
>>
>>> Zend Technologies only owns the 'Zend Engine' (whatever that is ;)
>>
>> The Zend Engine is the core runtime engine that parses and executes your
>> PHP code. As noted, the copyright to that is owned by Zend Technologies,
>> but as with the rest of PHP, it's made available under a liberal open
>> source licence.
>>
>> In short, there's no real way PHP as a whole could be bought by a company
>> à la Java, because it's not owned by a singular entity as it is, and all
>> of the components are licensed under an Apache-like licence.
>>
>> Adam
>
> No, but without an engine, PHP is pretty worthless.
>
> Of course, if someone ever bought out Zend and terminated everyone's PHP
> license, a bunch of programmers could spend the next 3-4 years putting
> together another engine and getting it to run. But by then PHP would be
> dead anyway.
>
One hundred percent unreal.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #170996 is a reply to message #170990] |
Tue, 14 December 2010 14:13 |
Twayne
Messages: 135
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In news:ie6tfp$6q5$2(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> typed:
> On 12/13/2010 10:42 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 13:22:15 +0100, Luuk wrote:
>>> On 13-12-10 12:26, Kevin wrote:
>>>> Looks like there are alot of pissed off people who don't
>>>> want to use Java any longer because of Oracle's take
>>>> over of Sun. Could this ever happen to PHP ?. Who
>>>> actually owns PHP ?.
>>>
>>> It show that copy right is at: 'The PHP Group'
>>
>> Yep, the copyright is held by the PHP Group, as listed at
>> http://www.php.net/credits.php. As far as I know, there's
>> no particular organisational structure to that beyond it
>> being a loose group of developers who have made key
>> contributions to PHP over a long period of time.
>>
>>> Zend Technologies only owns the 'Zend Engine' (whatever
>>> that is ;)
>>
>> The Zend Engine is the core runtime engine that parses and
>> executes your PHP code. As noted, the copyright to that is
>> owned by Zend Technologies, but as with the rest of PHP,
>> it's made available under a liberal open source licence.
>>
>> In short, there's no real way PHP as a whole could be
>> bought by a company C la Java, because it's not owned by
>> a singular entity as it is, and all of the components are
>> licensed under an Apache-like licence. Adam
>
> No, but without an engine, PHP is pretty worthless.
>
> Of course, if someone ever bought out Zend and terminated
> everyone's PHP license, a bunch of programmers could spend
> the next 3-4 years putting together another engine and
> getting it to run. But by then PHP would be dead anyway.
IMO, not so. Zend actually is pretty straight forward in what it does do and
doesn't have all that much to do anyway. One of the Forges could likely
develop one a lot faster than that. Maybe they're already playing with such
stuff; I never looked.
Happy pessimism Jerry.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #171016 is a reply to message #170990] |
Wed, 15 December 2010 02:51 |
Adam Harvey
Messages: 25
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 23:57:28 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 12/13/2010 10:42 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
>> The Zend Engine is the core runtime engine that parses and executes
>> your PHP code. As noted, the copyright to that is owned by Zend
>> Technologies, but as with the rest of PHP, it's made available under a
>> liberal open source licence.
>>
>> In short, there's no real way PHP as a whole could be bought by a
>> company à la Java, because it's not owned by a singular entity as it
>> is, and all of the components are licensed under an Apache-like
>> licence.
>
> No, but without an engine, PHP is pretty worthless.
Absolutely, but it's not an actual problem, because:
> Of course, if someone ever bought out Zend and terminated everyone's PHP
> license, a bunch of programmers could spend the next 3-4 years putting
> together another engine and getting it to run. But by then PHP would be
> dead anyway.
The Zend Engine License (available in Zend/LICENSE within the PHP source
tree) explicitly deals with this problem. To quote section 4 of said
licence:
4. Zend Technologies Ltd. may publish revised and/or new versions
of the license from time to time. Each version will be given a
distinguishing version number.
Once covered code has been published under a particular version
of the license, you may always continue to use it under the
terms of that version. You may also choose to use such covered
code under the terms of any subsequent version of the license
published by Zend Technologies Ltd. No one other than Zend
Technologies Ltd. has the right to modify the terms applicable
to covered code created under this License.
The important bit is that covered code can always be used under the
version of the Zend Engine License. Even in the incredibly unlikely
situation that Zend were to get bought out and development of the Zend
Engine was closed, the most recent version of the Zend Engine included in
the PHP source tree would remain open source, and I dare say that
development would continue on that open source version of the Zend Engine
regardless: much of the work that occurs on the engine comes from
developers who aren't employed by Zend anyway.
tl;dr: Can't happen. Relax.
Adam
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #171018 is a reply to message #171016] |
Wed, 15 December 2010 03:17 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 12/14/2010 9:51 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 23:57:28 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 12/13/2010 10:42 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
>>> The Zend Engine is the core runtime engine that parses and executes
>>> your PHP code. As noted, the copyright to that is owned by Zend
>>> Technologies, but as with the rest of PHP, it's made available under a
>>> liberal open source licence.
>>>
>>> In short, there's no real way PHP as a whole could be bought by a
>>> company à la Java, because it's not owned by a singular entity as it
>>> is, and all of the components are licensed under an Apache-like
>>> licence.
>>
>> No, but without an engine, PHP is pretty worthless.
>
> Absolutely, but it's not an actual problem, because:
>
>> Of course, if someone ever bought out Zend and terminated everyone's PHP
>> license, a bunch of programmers could spend the next 3-4 years putting
>> together another engine and getting it to run. But by then PHP would be
>> dead anyway.
>
> The Zend Engine License (available in Zend/LICENSE within the PHP source
> tree) explicitly deals with this problem. To quote section 4 of said
> licence:
>
> 4. Zend Technologies Ltd. may publish revised and/or new versions
> of the license from time to time. Each version will be given a
> distinguishing version number.
> Once covered code has been published under a particular version
> of the license, you may always continue to use it under the
> terms of that version. You may also choose to use such covered
> code under the terms of any subsequent version of the license
> published by Zend Technologies Ltd. No one other than Zend
> Technologies Ltd. has the right to modify the terms applicable
> to covered code created under this License.
>
> The important bit is that covered code can always be used under the
> version of the Zend Engine License. Even in the incredibly unlikely
> situation that Zend were to get bought out and development of the Zend
> Engine was closed, the most recent version of the Zend Engine included in
> the PHP source tree would remain open source, and I dare say that
> development would continue on that open source version of the Zend Engine
> regardless: much of the work that occurs on the engine comes from
> developers who aren't employed by Zend anyway.
>
> tl;dr: Can't happen. Relax.
>
> Adam
The important point here is:
"No one other than Zend Technologies Ltd. has the right to modify the
terms applicable to covered code created under this License.
If someone buys Zend out, they are free to modify any and all licenses.
That includes revoking those same licenses.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #171020 is a reply to message #171018] |
Wed, 15 December 2010 03:24 |
Adam Harvey
Messages: 25
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:17:46 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 12/14/2010 9:51 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
>> The Zend Engine License (available in Zend/LICENSE within the PHP
>> source tree) explicitly deals with this problem. To quote section 4 of
>> said licence:
>>
>> 4. Zend Technologies Ltd. may publish revised and/or new versions
>> of the license from time to time. Each version will be given a
>> distinguishing version number.
>> Once covered code has been published under a particular version
>> of the license, you may always continue to use it under the terms
>> of that version. You may also choose to use such covered code
>> under the terms of any subsequent version of the license
>> published by Zend Technologies Ltd. No one other than Zend
>> Technologies Ltd. has the right to modify the terms applicable to
>> covered code created under this License.
>>
>> The important bit is that covered code can always be used under the
>> version of the Zend Engine License. Even in the incredibly unlikely
>> situation that Zend were to get bought out and development of the Zend
>> Engine was closed, the most recent version of the Zend Engine included
>> in the PHP source tree would remain open source, and I dare say that
>> development would continue on that open source version of the Zend
>> Engine regardless: much of the work that occurs on the engine comes
>> from developers who aren't employed by Zend anyway.
>
> The important point here is:
>
> "No one other than Zend Technologies Ltd. has the right to modify the
> terms applicable to covered code created under this License.
>
> If someone buys Zend out, they are free to modify any and all licenses.
> That includes revoking those same licenses.
That has to be read in conjunction with the earlier part:
Once covered code has been published under a particular version
of the license, you may always continue to use it under the
terms of that version.
Zend can, of course, change the terms of the licence at any time by
releasing a revised version of the licence, but you (and everyone else)
retains the right to use the code released under the "Zend Engine
License, Version 2.00" under those exact terms in perpetuity. That
licence on that code is explicitly irrevocable.
Adam, who will bow out of this thread now and leave Jerry to have the
last word on how black is white.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #171021 is a reply to message #171020] |
Wed, 15 December 2010 03:29 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 12/14/2010 10:24 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:17:46 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 12/14/2010 9:51 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
>>> The Zend Engine License (available in Zend/LICENSE within the PHP
>>> source tree) explicitly deals with this problem. To quote section 4 of
>>> said licence:
>>>
>>> 4. Zend Technologies Ltd. may publish revised and/or new versions
>>> of the license from time to time. Each version will be given a
>>> distinguishing version number.
>>> Once covered code has been published under a particular version
>>> of the license, you may always continue to use it under the terms
>>> of that version. You may also choose to use such covered code
>>> under the terms of any subsequent version of the license
>>> published by Zend Technologies Ltd. No one other than Zend
>>> Technologies Ltd. has the right to modify the terms applicable to
>>> covered code created under this License.
>>>
>>> The important bit is that covered code can always be used under the
>>> version of the Zend Engine License. Even in the incredibly unlikely
>>> situation that Zend were to get bought out and development of the Zend
>>> Engine was closed, the most recent version of the Zend Engine included
>>> in the PHP source tree would remain open source, and I dare say that
>>> development would continue on that open source version of the Zend
>>> Engine regardless: much of the work that occurs on the engine comes
>>> from developers who aren't employed by Zend anyway.
>>
>> The important point here is:
>>
>> "No one other than Zend Technologies Ltd. has the right to modify the
>> terms applicable to covered code created under this License.
>>
>> If someone buys Zend out, they are free to modify any and all licenses.
>> That includes revoking those same licenses.
>
> That has to be read in conjunction with the earlier part:
>
> Once covered code has been published under a particular version
> of the license, you may always continue to use it under the
> terms of that version.
>
> Zend can, of course, change the terms of the licence at any time by
> releasing a revised version of the licence, but you (and everyone else)
> retains the right to use the code released under the "Zend Engine
> License, Version 2.00" under those exact terms in perpetuity. That
> licence on that code is explicitly irrevocable.
>
> Adam, who will bow out of this thread now and leave Jerry to have the
> last word on how black is white.
Better check with your attorney. They are perfectly legitimate in
revoking all licenses, effective immediately. A license is not
perpetual permission to use whatever product - it is permission at the
discretion of the owner.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #171022 is a reply to message #171021] |
Wed, 15 December 2010 03:40 |
Moiv
Messages: 3
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
"Jerry Stuckle" <jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote in message
news:ie9cmj$qlt$1(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org...
> On 12/14/2010 10:24 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:17:46 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2010 9:51 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
>>>> The Zend Engine License (available in Zend/LICENSE within the PHP
>>>> source tree) explicitly deals with this problem. To quote section 4 of
>>>> said licence:
>>>>
>>>> 4. Zend Technologies Ltd. may publish revised and/or new versions
>>>> of the license from time to time. Each version will be given a
>>>> distinguishing version number.
>>>> Once covered code has been published under a particular version
>>>> of the license, you may always continue to use it under the
>>>> terms
>>>> of that version. You may also choose to use such covered code
>>>> under the terms of any subsequent version of the license
>>>> published by Zend Technologies Ltd. No one other than Zend
>>>> Technologies Ltd. has the right to modify the terms applicable
>>>> to
>>>> covered code created under this License.
>>>>
>>>> The important bit is that covered code can always be used under the
>>>> version of the Zend Engine License. Even in the incredibly unlikely
>>>> situation that Zend were to get bought out and development of the Zend
>>>> Engine was closed, the most recent version of the Zend Engine included
>>>> in the PHP source tree would remain open source, and I dare say that
>>>> development would continue on that open source version of the Zend
>>>> Engine regardless: much of the work that occurs on the engine comes
>>>> from developers who aren't employed by Zend anyway.
>>>
>>> The important point here is:
>>>
>>> "No one other than Zend Technologies Ltd. has the right to modify the
>>> terms applicable to covered code created under this License.
>>>
>>> If someone buys Zend out, they are free to modify any and all licenses.
>>> That includes revoking those same licenses.
>>
>> That has to be read in conjunction with the earlier part:
>>
>> Once covered code has been published under a particular version
>> of the license, you may always continue to use it under the
>> terms of that version.
>>
>> Zend can, of course, change the terms of the licence at any time by
>> releasing a revised version of the licence, but you (and everyone else)
>> retains the right to use the code released under the "Zend Engine
>> License, Version 2.00" under those exact terms in perpetuity. That
>> licence on that code is explicitly irrevocable.
>>
>> Adam, who will bow out of this thread now and leave Jerry to have the
>> last word on how black is white.
>
> Better check with your attorney. They are perfectly legitimate in
> revoking all licenses, effective immediately. A license is not perpetual
> permission to use whatever product - it is permission at the discretion of
> the owner.
>
Jerry, you are wrong.
> Once covered code has been published under a particular version
> of the license, you may ALWAYS continue to use it under the terms
> of THAT version. You may ALSO CHOOSE to use such covered code
> under the terms of any subsequent version of the license
But you don't *have* to choose to use such covered code under the terms of
any subsequent version of the license.
One would choose to ALWAYS continue to use it under the terms of THAT
version.
Have a nice day.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #171023 is a reply to message #171022] |
Wed, 15 December 2010 04:24 |
Jerry Stuckle
Messages: 2598
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 12/14/2010 10:40 PM, Moiv wrote:
> "Jerry Stuckle"<jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net> wrote in message
> news:ie9cmj$qlt$1(at)news(dot)eternal-september(dot)org...
>> On 12/14/2010 10:24 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 22:17:46 -0500, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/2010 9:51 PM, Adam Harvey wrote:
>>>> > The Zend Engine License (available in Zend/LICENSE within the PHP
>>>> > source tree) explicitly deals with this problem. To quote section 4 of
>>>> > said licence:
>>>> >
>>>> > 4. Zend Technologies Ltd. may publish revised and/or new versions
>>>> > of the license from time to time. Each version will be given a
>>>> > distinguishing version number.
>>>> > Once covered code has been published under a particular version
>>>> > of the license, you may always continue to use it under the
>>>> > terms
>>>> > of that version. You may also choose to use such covered code
>>>> > under the terms of any subsequent version of the license
>>>> > published by Zend Technologies Ltd. No one other than Zend
>>>> > Technologies Ltd. has the right to modify the terms applicable
>>>> > to
>>>> > covered code created under this License.
>>>> >
>>>> > The important bit is that covered code can always be used under the
>>>> > version of the Zend Engine License. Even in the incredibly unlikely
>>>> > situation that Zend were to get bought out and development of the Zend
>>>> > Engine was closed, the most recent version of the Zend Engine included
>>>> > in the PHP source tree would remain open source, and I dare say that
>>>> > development would continue on that open source version of the Zend
>>>> > Engine regardless: much of the work that occurs on the engine comes
>>>> > from developers who aren't employed by Zend anyway.
>>>>
>>>> The important point here is:
>>>>
>>>> "No one other than Zend Technologies Ltd. has the right to modify the
>>>> terms applicable to covered code created under this License.
>>>>
>>>> If someone buys Zend out, they are free to modify any and all licenses.
>>>> That includes revoking those same licenses.
>>>
>>> That has to be read in conjunction with the earlier part:
>>>
>>> Once covered code has been published under a particular version
>>> of the license, you may always continue to use it under the
>>> terms of that version.
>>>
>>> Zend can, of course, change the terms of the licence at any time by
>>> releasing a revised version of the licence, but you (and everyone else)
>>> retains the right to use the code released under the "Zend Engine
>>> License, Version 2.00" under those exact terms in perpetuity. That
>>> licence on that code is explicitly irrevocable.
>>>
>>> Adam, who will bow out of this thread now and leave Jerry to have the
>>> last word on how black is white.
>>
>> Better check with your attorney. They are perfectly legitimate in
>> revoking all licenses, effective immediately. A license is not perpetual
>> permission to use whatever product - it is permission at the discretion of
>> the owner.
>>
>
> Jerry, you are wrong.
>
>> Once covered code has been published under a particular version
>> of the license, you may ALWAYS continue to use it under the terms
>> of THAT version. You may ALSO CHOOSE to use such covered code
>> under the terms of any subsequent version of the license
>
> But you don't *have* to choose to use such covered code under the terms of
> any subsequent version of the license.
> One would choose to ALWAYS continue to use it under the terms of THAT
> version.
>
>
> Have a nice day.
>
>
As I told Adam - I suggest you consult with an attorney.
The owner has the option of changing the license at any time. It is up
to you as to whether you accept the change; if not, you must stop using
the product. And they can also revoke all licenses at any time.
Whatever they have promised in previous licenses is pretty much
immaterial - at least in the U.S.
Now I don't think Zend would do this as they are. But if they are
bought out by someone, it very well could happen.
Now if you have actually paid for a product, the rules are different.
But that's not part of this discussion.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex(at)attglobal(dot)net
==================
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #171024 is a reply to message #170972] |
Wed, 15 December 2010 05:54 |
asdf
Messages: 4
Registered: December 2010
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Kevin wrote:
> Looks like there are alot of pissed off people who don't want to use
> Java any longer because of Oracle's take over of Sun.
> Could this ever happen to PHP ?. Who actually owns PHP ?.
The real question is why on EARTH would anybody want to BUY java?
....except for loony Oracle with their java server rubbish.
Anyway... another potentially useful tech bites the dust.
Mind you... it was already dead.
:)
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #171029 is a reply to message #171024] |
Wed, 15 December 2010 11:25 |
Erwin Moller
Messages: 228
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 12/15/2010 6:54 AM, asdf wrote:
> Kevin wrote:
>> Looks like there are alot of pissed off people who don't want to use
>> Java any longer because of Oracle's take over of Sun.
>> Could this ever happen to PHP ?. Who actually owns PHP ?.
>
> The real question is why on EARTH would anybody want to BUY java?
>
> ...except for loony Oracle with their java server rubbish.
>
> Anyway... another potentially useful tech bites the dust.
>
> Mind you... it was already dead.
>
> :)
>
>
Get a life, troll.
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #171042 is a reply to message #170972] |
Thu, 16 December 2010 23:51 |
Thomas 'PointedEars'
Messages: 701
Registered: October 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Kevin wrote:
> Looks like there are alot of pissed off people who don't want to use
> Java any longer because of Oracle's take over of Sun.
This is hardly reasonable behavior. Probably they also stopped, among
others, washing their clothes, eating sweets, brushing their teeth,
shaving/using make-up, using batteries, washing their hair, diapering their
babies, and coloring their hair. For e.g. Procter & Gamble Co. owns the
brands Ariel, Bounty, Crest/Oral B, Braun, Gillette, CoverGirl, Duracell,
Head & Shoulders, Pampers, and Wella, among others.
> Could this ever happen to PHP ?.
I daresay it has happened already because LAMP/WAMP are frequent
combinations, and MySQL AB, previously a wholly owned subsidiary of Sun
Microsystems, Inc. (2008), is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Oracle Corp.,
too.
PointedEars
--
var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
&& navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
) // Plone, register_function.js:16
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #171043 is a reply to message #171042] |
Fri, 17 December 2010 00:02 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 993
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Kevin wrote:
>
>> Looks like there are alot of pissed off people who don't want to use
>> Java any longer because of Oracle's take over of Sun.
>
> This is hardly reasonable behavior. Probably they also stopped, among
> others, washing their clothes, eating sweets, brushing their teeth,
> shaving/using make-up, using batteries, washing their hair, diapering their
> babies, and coloring their hair. For e.g. Procter & Gamble Co. owns the
> brands Ariel, Bounty, Crest/Oral B, Braun, Gillette, CoverGirl, Duracell,
> Head & Shoulders, Pampers, and Wella, among others.
>
>> Could this ever happen to PHP ?.
>
> I daresay it has happened already because LAMP/WAMP are frequent
> combinations, and MySQL AB, previously a wholly owned subsidiary of Sun
> Microsystems, Inc. (2008), is now a wholly owned subsidiary of Oracle Corp.,
> too.
>
>
> PointedEars
And as long as the code is free, and it works, I personally couldn't
care less.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #171045 is a reply to message #171043] |
Fri, 17 December 2010 08:56 |
Erwin Moller
Messages: 228
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 12/17/2010 1:02 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Kevin wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like there are alot of pissed off people who don't want to use
>>> Java any longer because of Oracle's take over of Sun.
>>
>> This is hardly reasonable behavior. Probably they also stopped, among
>> others, washing their clothes, eating sweets, brushing their teeth,
>> shaving/using make-up, using batteries, washing their hair, diapering
>> their babies, and coloring their hair. For e.g. Procter & Gamble Co.
>> owns the brands Ariel, Bounty, Crest/Oral B, Braun, Gillette,
>> CoverGirl, Duracell, Head & Shoulders, Pampers, and Wella, among others.
>>
>>> Could this ever happen to PHP ?.
>>
>> I daresay it has happened already because LAMP/WAMP are frequent
>> combinations, and MySQL AB, previously a wholly owned subsidiary of
>> Sun Microsystems, Inc. (2008), is now a wholly owned subsidiary of
>> Oracle Corp., too.
>>
>>
>> PointedEars
>
> And as long as the code is free, and it works, I personally couldn't
> care less.
>
Does anybody know what the charges exactly mean that Oracle charged
against Google? It had to do with Java and Google's Android.
What I see happening:
1) Android is developed with Java. Everybody is happy.
2) Oracle buys Sun, and thus gets Java.
3) Oracle brings Google to the courtroom.
I am horribly bad at reading legal stuff, so somebody can explain it to
me in a more logical/clear way, please do.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #171046 is a reply to message #171045] |
Fri, 17 December 2010 09:29 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 993
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Erwin Moller wrote:
> On 12/17/2010 1:02 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> Kevin wrote:
>>>
>>>> Looks like there are alot of pissed off people who don't want to use
>>>> Java any longer because of Oracle's take over of Sun.
>>>
>>> This is hardly reasonable behavior. Probably they also stopped, among
>>> others, washing their clothes, eating sweets, brushing their teeth,
>>> shaving/using make-up, using batteries, washing their hair, diapering
>>> their babies, and coloring their hair. For e.g. Procter & Gamble Co.
>>> owns the brands Ariel, Bounty, Crest/Oral B, Braun, Gillette,
>>> CoverGirl, Duracell, Head & Shoulders, Pampers, and Wella, among others.
>>>
>>>> Could this ever happen to PHP ?.
>>>
>>> I daresay it has happened already because LAMP/WAMP are frequent
>>> combinations, and MySQL AB, previously a wholly owned subsidiary of
>>> Sun Microsystems, Inc. (2008), is now a wholly owned subsidiary of
>>> Oracle Corp., too.
>>>
>>>
>>> PointedEars
>>
>> And as long as the code is free, and it works, I personally couldn't
>> care less.
>>
>
> Does anybody know what the charges exactly mean that Oracle charged
> against Google? It had to do with Java and Google's Android.
>
> What I see happening:
> 1) Android is developed with Java. Everybody is happy.
> 2) Oracle buys Sun, and thus gets Java.
> 3) Oracle brings Google to the courtroom.
>
> I am horribly bad at reading legal stuff, so somebody can explain it to
> me in a more logical/clear way, please do.
>
No idea Erwin.
Except Google is doing another Microsoft.
And Oracle loathes Microsoft, for all the right reasons.
My guess is that the fine print on Java says that it's under some sort
of 'you cant use this for profit without also... ' license. And Google
hasn't kept to the strict letter.
> Regards,
> Erwin Moller
>
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #171047 is a reply to message #171045] |
Fri, 17 December 2010 09:37 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 993
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Erwin Moller wrote:
> Does anybody know what the charges exactly mean that Oracle charged
> against Google? It had to do with Java and Google's Android.
>
> What I see happening:
> 1) Android is developed with Java. Everybody is happy.
> 2) Oracle buys Sun, and thus gets Java.
> 3) Oracle brings Google to the courtroom.
>
> I am horribly bad at reading legal stuff, so somebody can explain it to
> me in a more logical/clear way, please do.
>
When someone says it better than you can yourself, quote..;-)
"Oracle has mounted a no-holds-barred legal attack on Google's Android
operating system in a lawsuit that accuses the internet giant of
deliberately infringing patents and copyrights Oracle holds for the Java
platform.
In a complaint filed late Thursday, Oracle asked a federal court in
Northern California to seize all Android products and advertising, block
the further infringement of its intellectual property, and force Google
to pay hefty damages, including trebled patent damages because the
alleged misappropriation was willful. The action was filed on behalf of
Oracle subsidiary Oracle America, which obtained the Java rights with
the acquisition of Sun Microsystems in January.
"Without consent, authorization, approval, or license, Google knowingly,
willingly, and unlawfully copied, prepared, published, and distributed
Oracle America's copyrighted work, portions thereof, or derivative works
and continues to do so," Oracle attorneys, which include renowned
litigator David Boies, wrote. "Google's Android infringes Oracle
America's copyrights in Java and Google is not licensed to do so."
The unexpected move comes as sales of Android-based smartphones are
surging, inching past iPhone buyers in the second quarter of this year
and garnering a 27 per cent market share to the iPhone's 23 per cent. It
follows a series of patent suits and countersuits filed by and against
Apple over intellectual property for its handset.
The complaint asserts seven patents to various technologies associated
with Java, in addition to copyrighted code, documentation,
specifications, libraries, and other materials that comprise the
platform. Attorneys said the intellectual property is infringed by
various Java applications that make up the Android stack and run on a
Java-based object-oriented application framework. They also cited core
Android libraries that run on the Dalvik virtual machine, which features
just-in-time compilation.
"On information and belief, Google has purposefully, actively, and
voluntarily distributed Android and related applications, devices,
platforms, and services with the expectation that they will be
purchased, used or licensed by consumers in the Northern District of
California," the complaint stated. "By purposefully and voluntarily
distributing one or more of its infringing products and services, Google
has injured Oracle America and is thus liable to Oracle America for
infringement of the patents at issue in this litigation."
The legal broadside is in some ways reminiscent of the legal offensive
Sun launched against Microsoft in 1997 over the same technology. The two
companies spent the better part of a decade hashing out their
disagreements, and many of the most explosive allegations — that
Microsoft intentionally misappropriated Java to blunt its
write-once-run-anywhere promise — were later incorporated into an
antitrust lawsuit filed by the Justice Department and more than a dozen
states.
Microsoft ultimately agreed to pay Sun $1bln to settle their
disagreements after the judge hearing the antitrust case ruled that
Microsoft was a monopolist that had acted illegally to preserve its
dominant position.
The patents in the case are 6,125,447, "Protection domains to provide
security in a computer system"; 6,192,476, "Controlling access to a
resource"; 5,966,702, "Method and apparatus for pre-processing and
packaging class files"; 7,426,720, "System and method for dynamic
preloading of classes through memory space cloning of a master runtime
system process"; RE38,104, "Method and apparatus for resolving data
references in generated code"; 6,910,205, "Interpreting functions
utilizing a hybrid of virtual and native machine instructions"; and
6,061,520, "Method and system for performing static initialization."
Google declined to comment."
...........................................
It was worth it for a billion, last time.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #171049 is a reply to message #170972] |
Fri, 17 December 2010 11:41 |
Man-wai Chang
Messages: 11
Registered: December 2010
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On 13/12/2010 19:26, Kevin wrote:
> Looks like there are alot of pissed off people who don't want to use
> Java any longer because of Oracle's take over of Sun.
> Could this ever happen to PHP ?. Who actually owns PHP ?.
Java is being used by many big companies. PHP programmers are usually
less well-paid than Java programmers.
--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.36.2
^ ^ 19:38:01 up 2:54 2 users load average: 1.02 1.07 1.03
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #171062 is a reply to message #171047] |
Mon, 20 December 2010 14:45 |
Erwin Moller
Messages: 228
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On 12/17/2010 10:37 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> Erwin Moller wrote:
>
>> Does anybody know what the charges exactly mean that Oracle charged
>> against Google? It had to do with Java and Google's Android.
>>
>> What I see happening:
>> 1) Android is developed with Java. Everybody is happy.
>> 2) Oracle buys Sun, and thus gets Java.
>> 3) Oracle brings Google to the courtroom.
>>
>> I am horribly bad at reading legal stuff, so somebody can explain it
>> to me in a more logical/clear way, please do.
>>
>
> When someone says it better than you can yourself, quote..;-)
>
> "Oracle has mounted a no-holds-barred legal attack on Google's Android
> operating system in a lawsuit that accuses the internet giant of
> deliberately infringing patents and copyrights Oracle holds for the Java
> platform.
>
> In a complaint filed late Thursday, Oracle asked a federal court in
> Northern California to seize all Android products and advertising, block
> the further infringement of its intellectual property, and force Google
> to pay hefty damages, including trebled patent damages because the
> alleged misappropriation was willful. The action was filed on behalf of
> Oracle subsidiary Oracle America, which obtained the Java rights with
> the acquisition of Sun Microsystems in January.
>
> "Without consent, authorization, approval, or license, Google knowingly,
> willingly, and unlawfully copied, prepared, published, and distributed
> Oracle America's copyrighted work, portions thereof, or derivative works
> and continues to do so," Oracle attorneys, which include renowned
> litigator David Boies, wrote. "Google's Android infringes Oracle
> America's copyrights in Java and Google is not licensed to do so."
>
> The unexpected move comes as sales of Android-based smartphones are
> surging, inching past iPhone buyers in the second quarter of this year
> and garnering a 27 per cent market share to the iPhone's 23 per cent. It
> follows a series of patent suits and countersuits filed by and against
> Apple over intellectual property for its handset.
>
> The complaint asserts seven patents to various technologies associated
> with Java, in addition to copyrighted code, documentation,
> specifications, libraries, and other materials that comprise the
> platform. Attorneys said the intellectual property is infringed by
> various Java applications that make up the Android stack and run on a
> Java-based object-oriented application framework. They also cited core
> Android libraries that run on the Dalvik virtual machine, which features
> just-in-time compilation.
>
> "On information and belief, Google has purposefully, actively, and
> voluntarily distributed Android and related applications, devices,
> platforms, and services with the expectation that they will be
> purchased, used or licensed by consumers in the Northern District of
> California," the complaint stated. "By purposefully and voluntarily
> distributing one or more of its infringing products and services, Google
> has injured Oracle America and is thus liable to Oracle America for
> infringement of the patents at issue in this litigation."
>
> The legal broadside is in some ways reminiscent of the legal offensive
> Sun launched against Microsoft in 1997 over the same technology. The two
> companies spent the better part of a decade hashing out their
> disagreements, and many of the most explosive allegations — that
> Microsoft intentionally misappropriated Java to blunt its
> write-once-run-anywhere promise — were later incorporated into an
> antitrust lawsuit filed by the Justice Department and more than a dozen
> states.
>
> Microsoft ultimately agreed to pay Sun $1bln to settle their
> disagreements after the judge hearing the antitrust case ruled that
> Microsoft was a monopolist that had acted illegally to preserve its
> dominant position.
>
> The patents in the case are 6,125,447, "Protection domains to provide
> security in a computer system"; 6,192,476, "Controlling access to a
> resource"; 5,966,702, "Method and apparatus for pre-processing and
> packaging class files"; 7,426,720, "System and method for dynamic
> preloading of classes through memory space cloning of a master runtime
> system process"; RE38,104, "Method and apparatus for resolving data
> references in generated code"; 6,910,205, "Interpreting functions
> utilizing a hybrid of virtual and native machine instructions"; and
> 6,061,520, "Method and system for performing static initialization."
>
> Google declined to comment."
>
> ..........................................
> It was worth it for a billion, last time.
>
Hi TNP,
Looks like it indeed. :-)
But this case is different because Android Phones didn't intentionally
cripple Java, like early MS versions of 'Java' did.
I did some more reading and my new impression is this:
1) Google's Android is big, as is Google:it is multi-billion market.
2) As long as Oracle effectively spreads it FUD, sales might drop.
Potential customers might think: "Why buy a phone that is in legal
trouble? Will it continue? etc". You know: All the intented effects of a
successful FUD campaign.
3) Google calculates that settling the matter is cheaper than winning
the battle in court (after 10 years).
But that might just be my paranoid worldview.
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #171064 is a reply to message #171062] |
Mon, 20 December 2010 15:38 |
The Natural Philosoph
Messages: 993
Registered: September 2010
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Erwin Moller wrote:
> On 12/17/2010 10:37 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> Erwin Moller wrote:
>>
>>> Does anybody know what the charges exactly mean that Oracle charged
>>> against Google? It had to do with Java and Google's Android.
>>>
>>> What I see happening:
>>> 1) Android is developed with Java. Everybody is happy.
>>> 2) Oracle buys Sun, and thus gets Java.
>>> 3) Oracle brings Google to the courtroom.
>>>
>>> I am horribly bad at reading legal stuff, so somebody can explain it
>>> to me in a more logical/clear way, please do.
>>>
>>
>> When someone says it better than you can yourself, quote..;-)
>>
>> "Oracle has mounted a no-holds-barred legal attack on Google's Android
>> operating system in a lawsuit that accuses the internet giant of
>> deliberately infringing patents and copyrights Oracle holds for the Java
>> platform.
>>
>> In a complaint filed late Thursday, Oracle asked a federal court in
>> Northern California to seize all Android products and advertising, block
>> the further infringement of its intellectual property, and force Google
>> to pay hefty damages, including trebled patent damages because the
>> alleged misappropriation was willful. The action was filed on behalf of
>> Oracle subsidiary Oracle America, which obtained the Java rights with
>> the acquisition of Sun Microsystems in January.
>>
>> "Without consent, authorization, approval, or license, Google knowingly,
>> willingly, and unlawfully copied, prepared, published, and distributed
>> Oracle America's copyrighted work, portions thereof, or derivative works
>> and continues to do so," Oracle attorneys, which include renowned
>> litigator David Boies, wrote. "Google's Android infringes Oracle
>> America's copyrights in Java and Google is not licensed to do so."
>>
>> The unexpected move comes as sales of Android-based smartphones are
>> surging, inching past iPhone buyers in the second quarter of this year
>> and garnering a 27 per cent market share to the iPhone's 23 per cent. It
>> follows a series of patent suits and countersuits filed by and against
>> Apple over intellectual property for its handset.
>>
>> The complaint asserts seven patents to various technologies associated
>> with Java, in addition to copyrighted code, documentation,
>> specifications, libraries, and other materials that comprise the
>> platform. Attorneys said the intellectual property is infringed by
>> various Java applications that make up the Android stack and run on a
>> Java-based object-oriented application framework. They also cited core
>> Android libraries that run on the Dalvik virtual machine, which features
>> just-in-time compilation.
>>
>> "On information and belief, Google has purposefully, actively, and
>> voluntarily distributed Android and related applications, devices,
>> platforms, and services with the expectation that they will be
>> purchased, used or licensed by consumers in the Northern District of
>> California," the complaint stated. "By purposefully and voluntarily
>> distributing one or more of its infringing products and services, Google
>> has injured Oracle America and is thus liable to Oracle America for
>> infringement of the patents at issue in this litigation."
>>
>> The legal broadside is in some ways reminiscent of the legal offensive
>> Sun launched against Microsoft in 1997 over the same technology. The two
>> companies spent the better part of a decade hashing out their
>> disagreements, and many of the most explosive allegations — that
>> Microsoft intentionally misappropriated Java to blunt its
>> write-once-run-anywhere promise — were later incorporated into an
>> antitrust lawsuit filed by the Justice Department and more than a dozen
>> states.
>>
>> Microsoft ultimately agreed to pay Sun $1bln to settle their
>> disagreements after the judge hearing the antitrust case ruled that
>> Microsoft was a monopolist that had acted illegally to preserve its
>> dominant position.
>>
>> The patents in the case are 6,125,447, "Protection domains to provide
>> security in a computer system"; 6,192,476, "Controlling access to a
>> resource"; 5,966,702, "Method and apparatus for pre-processing and
>> packaging class files"; 7,426,720, "System and method for dynamic
>> preloading of classes through memory space cloning of a master runtime
>> system process"; RE38,104, "Method and apparatus for resolving data
>> references in generated code"; 6,910,205, "Interpreting functions
>> utilizing a hybrid of virtual and native machine instructions"; and
>> 6,061,520, "Method and system for performing static initialization."
>>
>> Google declined to comment."
>>
>> ..........................................
>> It was worth it for a billion, last time.
>>
>
> Hi TNP,
>
> Looks like it indeed. :-)
>
> But this case is different because Android Phones didn't intentionally
> cripple Java, like early MS versions of 'Java' did.
> I did some more reading and my new impression is this:
>
> 1) Google's Android is big, as is Google:it is multi-billion market.
> 2) As long as Oracle effectively spreads it FUD, sales might drop.
> Potential customers might think: "Why buy a phone that is in legal
> trouble? Will it continue? etc". You know: All the intented effects of a
> successful FUD campaign.
> 3) Google calculates that settling the matter is cheaper than winning
> the battle in court (after 10 years).
>
> But that might just be my paranoid worldview.
>
> Regards,
> Erwin Moller
>
It's always cheaper to settle: Lawyers don't come cheap.
Lawsuits are just a way to get the other party to the table.
Don't tell them, but I lied to my lawyer, about really wanting my day
in court, and an estate agent, about how I really couldn't afford to
pay..more. they believed me and I got better deals afterwards.
I prefer to deal with honest lawyers who will tell my lies for me, than
a crooked one who will lie for cash. Never know who will pay him more.
|
|
|
|
| Re: The Future of PHP [message #171066 is a reply to message #170989] |
Tue, 21 December 2010 01:03 |
Katie
Messages: 4
Registered: December 2010
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
On Dec 14, 3:42 am, Adam Harvey <use...@adamharvey.name> wrote:
> In short, there's no real way PHP as a whole could be bought by a company
> à laJava, because it's not owned by a singular entity as it is, and all
> of the components are licensed under an Apache-like licence.
Having thought about this, I'm not sure this is true. Unlike the GPL
and Apache 2.0 licence, there's no patent waiver in the PHP licence
(at least not that I can find), which means when any of the
contributors contributed code to PHP they didn't have to contribute
any patents covering the code. In which case PHP could be in exactly
the same situation that Java is in.
Katie
--
CoderStack
http://www.coderstack.co.uk/php-jobs
The Software Developer Job Board
|
|
|
|
Calendar
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
]