I don't think you can just pull a license. Once you release your code under the BSD, you can't later say: Take Backsies! And release it under the GPL instead. You can ALSO release it under the GPL, and provide further code contributions only to the GPL version, but what's out there is out there.
On Oct 29, 11:50 am, Fabrizio Giudici <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/28/2010 11:18 PM, Craig Kelley wrote:> Also note the absence of > generics in the Apache version. This is > > something you would lose, coming from a class file. > > The 'jad' hypothesis seems convincing: > > http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/dxmvr/oracle_google_dire... > > Now, it this gets proved, I'm wondering about two blasting consequences > of the thing: > > 1. What if part of the guilty code comes from an IBM donation to Apache? > It would be IBM's fault, right? Would Oracle pursue IBM after the deal > of the past week? > 2. It would also be a violation of the GPL licensing, and the FSF > foundation should stand up to protect the GPL - so, apparently they > should back Oracle. Right? > 3. Would be the FSF entitled for asking to release the whole Harmony > under the GPL (+CPE) license? In cascade, wouldn't be Google forced to > do the same? And, this is my point, couldn't be this the strategy by > Oracle (btw, they would have just to call for the enforcing of rules of > one of the most popular FLOSS licenses - difficult to argue that they're > running against the community)? In the end, they would get the Java > parts of the Android runtime licensed in the same way of the OpenJDK. > What effect would have this to manufacturers and carriers endorsing Android? > > Interesting times. > > -- > f.g. -- 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.
