Readit NewsPublic 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".
If everyone renders buttons in a custom way, they bypass the native, theming-capable, accessible-by-default system controls. As long as product managers are happy, it doesn't matter that users aren't.
That is alarmingly false. Do you have a source that McNealy indeed has said that? I couldn't find anything by googling.
Source: Official Reporters for the US District Court for the Northern District of California (regarding Oracle v. Google, 3:10-cv-03561)
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?
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25847574
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.
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.
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)?
My 2 cents: it isn't really that important. As long as the developer is aware of whether the language they are currently using 0 or 1 based indexing.
> 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.
Java is as open source and still has multiple implementations available, even Microsoft is now a Java vendor (after having bought jClarity).
Basically you want free beer like Linux? Get a distribution from OpenJDK.
You want support Red-Hat/SuSE style? There is Oracle, and a plenty of other vendors happy to sell JDKs with support.
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?