It didn't require a TCK license because Apache never called it Java nor did Google need permission to use it on embedded devices.
>Says the Google employee.
What a petty response. You're blaming the failure of Sun on Google. When in reality the failure of Sun can clearly be traced to their poor business decisions and acquisitions. Sun had a lot of potential, but they were let down by incompetent leadership.
>Why did not Google buy the Java assets from Sun, given the deep investment on Android?
Did Sun offer to sell the Java assets to Google? I'm not aware of such an offer ever being made. If the offer was made then I agree that Google should have purchased the Java assets solely.
>Ah now you state that Google did fork Java.
The only thing I'm claiming is that Google did indeed fork the OpenJDK as they are allowed to do.
>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.
The OpenJDK is an open source project that Google is allowed to legally fork and use just as long as they don't call the fork Java.
>Exactly what Sun managed to prevent with J++, whereas with Android Java they were a bit low on cash.
You're forgetting to mention a key difference. Microsoft called their extended version Java. Google does not refer to their fork as Java.
>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.
Google doesn't call their implementation Java so I don't see why you would think you should be able to run any Java app on Android.