http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
Regards, JD On 8/20/10, Quoll <[email protected]> wrote: > Fabrizio, > > IANAL, but I believe you are misunderstanding the rights that the GPL > (version 2 or 3) provides on patents. > > When a system is made available through the GPL, you are providing the > users and developers of that system and any derived works the right to > use anything patented that you have put into that system. By complying > with the GPL, any user or developer gains protection under the GPL. > Anything not derived from your GPLed work (and hence, not necessarily > subject to that GPL license) is not protected. Neither the GPL2, nor > the GPL3 require that you give up your rights on your patents, only > that you give them up in relation to the licensed work. So if I own a > patent on a technique that I use in a system, and then I GPL that > system, then anyone using that system is protected. Indeed, anyone > complying with the license of that system (ie. the GPL) is protected. > > My understanding is that Google's work is explicitly NOT derived from > Java, which is basically what Oracle is complaining about (because if > it were derived from Java, then Oracle is in a position to talk money, > since you're allowed to make money on GPL'ed work). This has put > Google into a position of NOT being protected by the GPL. If Dalvik > were an derived work of OpenJDK, then it would have the protection of > the GPL2, but it's not. Therefore, Oracle's legal team believe that > they have a case to make about the patents. > > From that perspective, Oracle are possibly right. So the question > comes down to the validity of the patents (I'm not going to go into > the copyright question. I don't believe for a minute that Google could > have made such a huge blunder). > > As others before me have already pointed out, the patents are either > trivial, have prior art, or are irrelevant. Allowing Oracle to get > away with this won't just undermine Java... it will undermine software > engineering in general. We (mostly) all know how evil software patents > are, but we mostly have to ignore them, or else we'd hardly be able to > write a "Hello World!" program without violating them. A high profile > case like this may bring > that issue to a head, and if Oracle were to win, then it casts a dark > cloud over our profession. > > But does it cast the GPL into doubt? No. > > Paul > > > On Aug 19, 4:12 am, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]> > wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 8/19/10 09:55 , Vince O'Sullivan wrote:> On Aug 18, 4:02 pm, Fabrizio >> Giudici >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> In the end, all the fears around are about the OpenJDK not being >> >> safe enough from patents, because it's GPLv2 and allegedly it >> >> only provides partial protection from patents. >> >> > I'm not sure I follow the argument here. Are you saying that if >> > OpenJDK (or, by implication, any other software) is released under >> > the appropriate licence then it becomes immune from patent claims? >> >> Well, my points are: >> >> 1. If a good FLOSS license doesn't protect from patent claims, the >> whole FLOSS world is a castle in the air. >> 2. Focusing, if GPLv2 isn't protecting enough, OpenJDK is not the only >> thing at risk - all things that rely on GPLv2 are potentially at risk, >> such as Linux (this should be the logical conclusion of people that >> don't trust Oracle, since Oracle is the 6th commiter to the Linux kernel). >> >> Now, I don't think that this could be true - but I fear a lots of FUD >> against FLOSS if the community doesn't clarify the points in an >> authoritative way. >> >> PS To confirm my fears about FUD, I'm keeping reading TONS of articles >> with things such "Android is a Java VM", etc... with a peak yesterday >> at ZDNet where I learnt that Android is based on JavaME. Since utter >> incompetence seems normal for people writing articles, the step to >> saying more dangerous things is short. >> >> - -- >> Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager >> Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." >> java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici -www.tidalwave.it/people >> [email protected] >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) >> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ >> >> iEYEARECAAYFAkxs51oACgkQeDweFqgUGxe6zwCeKaeWxUY7G9QDckg0kQBHuoly >> d3gAoJFNXu38Qe6H/Y6JUQQAM2AytphH >> =asap >> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "The Java Posse" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
