Except it wasn't a TCK project licensed for deployment on embedded devices.
> Sun is solely responsible for their bad business decisions due, in most part, to their incompetence. Issuing a license to Google would not have saved them from being acquired by Oracle.
Says the Google employee.
Why did not Google buy the Java assets from Sun, given the deep investment on Android?
Because they hoped Sun would silently sink and stop being a thorn on Google's misconduct.
Instead Sun got bought by Oracle, so stop complained, had Google bought Sun instead this would have neved happened.
> I wasn't aware that you had to implement 100% of an open source project if you forked it. Can you cite where that's a requirement?
Ah now you state that Google did fork Java.
> The Android SDK uses a forked subset of the OpenJDK. And why wouldn't Google remove things they didn't need like AWT, Swing, etc.
Because OpenJDK is to Java like libc is to C, libc++ to C++, DOM APIs to JavaScript, ....
Forking while pruning the available API breaks the compatibility with existing code and fragments the eco-system.
Exactly what Sun managed to prevent with J++, whereas with Android Java they were a bit low on cash.
> No it's not. There is no association architecturally or IP related between the JVM and ART. If there was then Oracle would not have lost every one of their JVM IP patent claims they asserted against the Android runtime.
Whatever Oracle has chosen as attack vector is little relevant for the fact that I cannot take a random piece of Java code and be assured it compiles and runs on Android.
If Google really wanted to drive Java somewhere else, while breaking backwards compatibility, the solution was in reach of their bank account when Sun started looking for buyers.