This recent article about FOSS and patent can also shed some light on the subject:
http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/10/foss-can-implement-patented-standards.html BoD On Oct 17, 11:27 am, Orien <[email protected]> wrote: > Regarding GPLv2 and the implicit patent grant/license, I agree the > legalities are not so cut and dry as I originally stated. Because the > grant is implicit, there will be varying interpretations as to the > extent of the protection and in what jurisdictions it applies. As far > as I know it has not been tested in any court. It is however more > protection than Google currently has. This wiki (beware the anti > software patent bias) highlights the relevant sections in the license > so you can read for yourself.http://en.swpat.org/wiki/GPLv2_and_patents. > I am not a lawyer and undoubtedly view the world through the rose- > colored glasses of a developer so rather than go into legalities, I > will state what the GPL means to me. > > At the heart of the GPL is the notion of free software and its intent > is to uphold the four freedoms as written by Richard Stallman. That > is, for any user of free software the following freedoms are given: > * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose. > * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your > needs. > * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor. > The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to > the public, so that the whole community benefits. > Thus, when an individual or organisation releases software under the > GPL, they are making a promise to their users to uphold these freedoms > regarding the licensed software. > > If we take the hypothetical situation where Android was based on the > OpenJDK under the terms of the GPL. In effect Oracle would have made a > promise to Google stating that it would not attempt to restrict the > four freedoms with regard to the OpenJDK. If Oracle then attempted to > use patent law (or any other law) to restrict the distribution of > Android, Oracle would have broken its promise. Moreover, broken the > promise made to all users of the OpenJDK. Note that even if Oracle won > the case in law, they still would have lost the trust of the > community. This situation would be much more ominous and damaging to > our community than the current situation where Google has received no > such promise from Oracle. > > Orien -- 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.
