Oracle gets much less control than what Google does with Android (which is all about controling the Google Apps Store and monetize it MUCH more than what Oracle does with really open licences).
But Google did not want any one of the available licences for Java (oncluding those that come at no cost).
Google wanted to promote its own new standard, and broke the interoperability, rejecting also the ISO standard specifications, rejecting the GPL principles.
Just compare the licence now wanted by Google for using its Andoid SDK : it is FAR WORSE for everybody than any available licences proposed by Oracle for Java.
The whole problem is there: Google had the choice, including with open licences. And rejected it. It wanted to get things outside of those licences as if it was a property thing.
But the main problem for everyone is that Google broke the interoperabiity, and REFUSED to adapt its SDK to cooperate with the open Java community. Who's more open ? Certainly not Google. What was asked to Google was to participate to the community if he wanted to influence the content of the JDK but also get official long term support for his propose extensions.
And The community could have had a voice to tune what Google proposed, to make sure that Java would remain portable and not limited to Android. There's absolutely NO community voice n the Android SDK. All is proprietary and decided by Google alone, that then forces all developers to follow his OWN decisions in the Android SDK. And force all developers to redevelop their apps for Android, testing them explicitly for Android.
Google has even failed to make Android portable with itself ! The upward upgradability which is a clear advantage of the Java platform is no longer true in Android alone.
I insist: the Android platform is a CLOSED platform because NOBODY else than Google can support it and because Google constantly includes new barriers including across its versions, forcin even the Androif developers to get new trainings, rebuild their apps, ultil Google will finaly vampirize those apps by creating its own version that will be the only one maintained across versions.
Effectively Google plays now the same closed game that Microsoft used in Windows (much less problematic today, Winphones are almost out of the market), then by Apple (with IOS).
Java was designed to work on all platforms. But now even Google blocks a compliant Java VM from running on Android devices (because it would mean that the same apps that may run on iPhones and Nokia could run on Android without changes) : this would mean that Google would no longer have controls on the contents available on mobile devices, meaning more competition between content providers and no more dependency with smartphone builders.
No more need to wait indefinitely for a firmware update by the OSM manufacturer. The VM would run correctly, would upgrade seemlessly, and applications would still work on these updated VMs. This is simply impossible with proprietary OSes like Android (and iOS, WinPhone)and on other devices (directly on your HDTV, or in your settop box, with a much wider market of apps working everywhere on all our screens).
I insist: the problem is not the copyrightability of an API but what kind of services this API is suppose to be used for. Google promises all sorts of things (including copying the documentation of the JDK from Oracle/Sun, and most of its Java source code), but fails in every other aspects. the Android VM is NOT working like Java. This means that Goofle lied even to customers and developers by republishing the JDK documentation WORD FOR WORD, but refusing to make the Android VM working as promissed in this copy. This is a clear defamation of the work made by Oracle/Sun and its open community to specify it and make it interoperable under clear design patterns.
Google did not even needed to reject Java to develop its own application market (now renamed Google Play, because Apple won against Google that called its Appstore like what Apple did for his iPhones/iOS platform).
Do you only know that Java works in open licences ? Including independant distributions where many core classes have been rewritten differently (including critical ones such as those involved in performance such as Security classes, 2D/3D rendering, audio/video codecs, and interoperability classes with lots of services like XML, HTML, CSS, web services, and high wuality mathematical packages (that DON'T run correctly on Android which produces wrong results, something that has never happened since several decenials in Java !)
Oracle gets much less control than what Google does with Android (which is all about controling the Google Apps Store and monetize it MUCH more than what Oracle does with really open licences).
But Google did not want any one of the available licences for Java (oncluding those that come at no cost).
Google wanted to promote its own new standard, and broke the interoperability, rejecting also the ISO standard specifications, rejecting the GPL principles.
Just compare the licence now wanted by Google for using its Andoid SDK : it is FAR WORSE for everybody than any available licences proposed by Oracle for Java.
The whole problem is there: Google had the choice, including with open licences. And rejected it. It wanted to get things outside of those licences as if it was a property thing.
But the main problem for everyone is that Google broke the interoperabiity, and REFUSED to adapt its SDK to cooperate with the open Java community. Who's more open ? Certainly not Google. What was asked to Google was to participate to the community if he wanted to influence the content of the JDK but also get official long term support for his propose extensions.
And The community could have had a voice to tune what Google proposed, to make sure that Java would remain portable and not limited to Android. There's absolutely NO community voice n the Android SDK. All is proprietary and decided by Google alone, that then forces all developers to follow his OWN decisions in the Android SDK. And force all developers to redevelop their apps for Android, testing them explicitly for Android.
Google has even failed to make Android portable with itself ! The upward upgradability which is a clear advantage of the Java platform is no longer true in Android alone.
I insist: the Android platform is a CLOSED platform because NOBODY else than Google can support it and because Google constantly includes new barriers including across its versions, forcin even the Androif developers to get new trainings, rebuild their apps, ultil Google will finaly vampirize those apps by creating its own version that will be the only one maintained across versions.
Effectively Google plays now the same closed game that Microsoft used in Windows (much less problematic today, Winphones are almost out of the market), then by Apple (with IOS).
Java was designed to work on all platforms. But now even Google blocks a compliant Java VM from running on Android devices (because it would mean that the same apps that may run on iPhones and Nokia could run on Android without changes) : this would mean that Google would no longer have controls on the contents available on mobile devices, meaning more competition between content providers and no more dependency with smartphone builders.
No more need to wait indefinitely for a firmware update by the OSM manufacturer. The VM would run correctly, would upgrade seemlessly, and applications would still work on these updated VMs. This is simply impossible with proprietary OSes like Android (and iOS, WinPhone)and on other devices (directly on your HDTV, or in your settop box, with a much wider market of apps working everywhere on all our screens).
I insist: the problem is not the copyrightability of an API but what kind of services this API is suppose to be used for. Google promises all sorts of things (including copying the documentation of the JDK from Oracle/Sun, and most of its Java source code), but fails in every other aspects. the Android VM is NOT working like Java. This means that Goofle lied even to customers and developers by republishing the JDK documentation WORD FOR WORD, but refusing to make the Android VM working as promissed in this copy. This is a clear defamation of the work made by Oracle/Sun and its open community to specify it and make it interoperable under clear design patterns.
Google did not even needed to reject Java to develop its own application market (now renamed Google Play, because Apple won against Google that called its Appstore like what Apple did for his iPhones/iOS platform).
Do you only know that Java works in open licences ? Including independant distributions where many core classes have been rewritten differently (including critical ones such as those involved in performance such as Security classes, 2D/3D rendering, audio/video codecs, and interoperability classes with lots of services like XML, HTML, CSS, web services, and high wuality mathematical packages (that DON'T run correctly on Android which produces wrong results, something that has never happened since several decenials in Java !)