As a sibling post says - I also still believe its UX and likely current responsiveness is better than anything out there now.
I would probably still use webOS if there was still minimal open source development, some phone to put it on (or I guess I’d be fine getting a Pre 3) and the App Store not being shut down with all apps gone. The homebrew apps weren’t really meant to replace the App Store if I recall.
A world where webOS has 5-10% market share as a stable 3rd place would be amazing.
Not true. You can use the OpenJDK for free until the end of time. If you want ongoing updates beyond six months, there are a bunch of free distributions: Azul Zulu Community (7/8/11/13/14), AdoptOpenJDK (8/11/14), etc.
It doesn't help that multiple Oracle/Sun folks—including people like McNealy—said under oath that they don't believe that the licensing permits you to make commercial use, even if you opt for the GPL version.
I don't know what you're referring to, but FSF does not allow the GPL be used in such a way that the four freedoms are compromised by the licensor imposing additional restrictions.
First, you didn't describe an exception; you described additional restrictions. But now you're pivoting to talk about exceptions.
These are fundamentally different things. One enlarges the set of actions a recipient is free to do relative to what vanilla GPL allows. This is permitted (and in the case of the classpath exception, endorsed) by FSF. The other attempts to shrink the size of that set by denying the user things that the GPL would otherwise allow. The FSF simply does not permit the GPL to be used in that combination (and there would be extreme contrast in your last sentence and the failure to recognize the FSF's say in this).
And secondly, you've yet to substantiate your claim that Java was ever distributed with such GPL-modifying restrictions.
How about a straightforward response, rather than trying to change the subject again?
What's more, I've seen this interview multiple times. Listening to Gosling stutter and be coy is not illuminating in the least. He has no idea how to answer the question he was asked, much less what's being discussed here now.
Sun as copyright holder had the right to constraint Java's usage as they wanted and embedded deployment wasn't covered.
Naturally it is hard for anyone to link to anything Sun, given what happened with their assets and Internet presence.
Is a substantiate argument? Maybe not, it doesn't change the fact that Google screwed Sun, didn't bothered to rescued it went it went down, and now we have Java and Android Java.
I guess FSF is happy with the outcome then, since it is allowed to tank companies.
> Sun as copyright holder had the right to constraint Java's usage
Sure. But what they don't have is domain over the GPL.
I won't respond to the rest of your comment, which has nothing to do with the claim you made to kick off this branch of discussion and is just another attempt to change the subject (with what is an opinion, not a "fact").
Glad to hear that; I thought I remembered reading something like that back when the license change was first announced, but I wasn't sure if something else had changed in the meantime.
