This does feel like a bit of an odd attack on BSD licenses, which really are more open than the GPL. I also don't think they are correct, but I must be wrong because I doubt the FSF would lie this blatantly. The OpenJDK, both 6 and 7, are released under the GPL *version 2*. You can double check this here:
http://openjdk.java.net/legal/ which clearly says version 2. As far as I can tell, GPL v2 does not mention patents at all. It's GPL v3 which does that, and which would have offered serious legal protection. But, it's not GPL v3, so, no protection. As far as I can tell, anyway. Anyone with a sharper legal mind around who can shed some light on this issue? Also, I think the FSF is just in attacking on Oracle on using patents agressively. One could argue the case itself is defensive (I'd disagree, but that's another topic), but be that as it may, Google is the defendant here, and Oracle the plaintiff, and the case involves (primarily) a bunch of patents. Just the kinds of patents that all IT professionals feel should never have been granted in the first place. If Oracle wins or even gets a settlement, it decreases the legal risk and thus cost involved for patent trolls to suck the community dry like a parasite. That's a bad thing, even if Oracle is merely using this cheap trick as a means to an end the community prefers (I don't think it does, nor should it, but, again, not my point). Also, nobody other than Oracle top brass even knows what the end goal is, so trying to claim that Oracle is the one fighting for the good of the community here seems a bit premature. And, yes, the FSF officially siding with google, while not exactly a surprise (to me anyway), does strengthen the PR case of google. Maybe on the back of causing apple to see the light, community backlash will make Oracle rethink its strategy here too. Maybe. One can hope :) On Sep 9, 2:53 pm, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 9/9/10 14:21 , Casper Bang wrote:> "We are collecting information about > the case, including > > information about prior art that could be used to attack the > > patents":http://www.fsf.org/news/oracle-v-google > > One interesting point, one FUD, one wrong fact, one arguable point and > one laughable point. In order: > > ************ > And they could have avoided all this by building Android on top of > IcedTea <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html>, a GPL-covered > Java implementation based on Sun's original code, instead of an > independent implementation under the Apache License. The GPL is > designed to protect everyone's freedom?from each individual user up to > the largest corporations?and it could've provided a strong defense > against Oracle's attacks. It's sad to see that Google apparently > shunned those protections in order to make proprietary software > development easier on Android. > *** > > This seems to confirm the GPL-protection-against-patents thing that > was raised a few days after the initial announcements. While I'd have > appreciated one more explicit statement, FSF seems to confirm that > GPL-based Java implementations can't be attacked by patents. > > ************ > Programmers will justifiably steer clear of Java when they stand to be > sued if they use it in some way that Oracle doesn't like. > *** > > This is FUD, especially considering the previous point. It seems that > Oracle can sue people for some limited cases, not for general-purpose > Java usage (which is what 99% of the programmers do). And if you're > using a GPL version of Java, you're always safe. > > ************ > One of the great benefits of free software is that it allows programs > to be combined in ways that none of the original developers would've > anticipated, to create something new and exciting. > *** > > It's untrue, as you can't combine GPLv2 together with Apache stuff. > Freedom exists, but it's always limited in some way. > > ************ > Oracle once claimed that it only sought software patents for defensive > purposes. Now it is using them to proactively attack free software. > *** > > It's arguable that Oracle is attacking. They could say that the attack > was initiated by Google when it released Android, and that Sun was > just unable to react. > > ************ > You can remind him [Larry Ellison] about the statements Oracle made in > 1994, like this one [a statement against software patents]: > *** > > This is laughable. Accusing somebody of changing his mind after > *sixteen* years... > > - -- > 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/ > > iEYEARECAAYFAkyI2MEACgkQeDweFqgUGxcVagCggWGW6ry1RmC01qkbjsYeHZYT > kMwAn2o3hRnK49krjpqN2eqMONdPOJ/U > =RGyX > -----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.
