Sorry for the late follow-up. > The article is based on the assumption that if the Apache Harmony > project passed the TCK and attained patient protection, then the > Android project would automatically gain protection. An assumption > which is clearly untrue. The majority of points describe the problems > Apache has had obtaining a license for their Harmony project, and are > not relevant to this case. To protect Android it would need to be > Android that passes the test, not Harmony. Android will not pass the > TCK.
I agree. > >> * Sun open-sourced Java Standard Edition under the GPL in 2006 and >> 2007, but didn't include a patent or copyright license with the code. > > This second point is blatantly incorrect as the GPL v2 IS a copyright > license and includes an implicit patent grant. Moreover, it implies > that any project or fork based on the OpenJDK is not protected from > such litigation, when it would be. I've done a bit of research but couldn't find a confirmation of what you are saying here. Can you elaborate on that idea? What I understood is that GPLv2 does not include a patent grant / license. >From what I read, only passing the TCK would give you a patent license from Oracle. So even if Android was based on OpenJDK, they would still need to pass the TCK to be protected from a patents case, but as you said, Android would not pass it. BoD -- 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.
