IMHO, this is a much stronger case: *Nothing in the licensing terms will prevent...

wmf · on July 26, 2011

That doesn't help because Dalvik is not compatible (and to make it compatible would probably require making it too slow and bloated to run on phones).

nl · on July 26, 2011

It depends what "compatible" means, though, doesn't it?

If you include the Java bytecode-to-Dalvik compiler as part of the "system" it could be considered compatible.

esrauch · on July 27, 2011

I'm not sure that the Java bytecodoe-to-Dalvik compiler actually completely Java SE 6 compatible (eg that it is a superset), but I think that is irrelevant since their licensing actually prohibits supersets. This is why Sun was able to force Microsoft to discontinue their JVM; it had nonstandard features in it, and therefore their licensing wouldn't be valid.

nl · on July 27, 2011

but I think that is irrelevant since their licensing actually prohibits supersets

Android/Dalvik isn't a licensed Java implementation so the irrelevance is irrelevant ;)

The original statement referred to the license to use a Java compatible API, not to be a Java licencee.

wmf · on July 27, 2011

It depends what "compatible" means, though, doesn't it?

It's fairly well defined by JSRs 270 or 216, and Android isn't even close. For example, the GUI libraries are quite different.

If you include the Java bytecode-to-Dalvik compiler as part of the "system" it could be considered compatible.

I don't think the compiler runs on the phone, so it doesn't count.