No; google did not release android under a GPL2 license; they released it 
under a BSD-style license. This is what the fuss is about:

Google took a (supposed) cleanroom implementation, namely, Apache Harmony 
which was already licensed BSD-style, tweaked it quite a bit, and released 
this, also under a BSD license. This is perfectly fine, as long as you 
steer clear of the following:

A) This is then not a java; java is a trademark, and sun/oracle has put 
forth the obligations for using java as a name for your alternate 
implementation: It must pass the TCK. The TCK is not open source and you 
need to be licensed to run the TCK on your alternate implementation. This 
was the central point of contention for Apache: They wanted harmony to be 
officially called 'a java', but sun was unwilling to license them the TCK 
to make it happen unless Apache included a clause in the license for 
harmony to restrict its use on cell phones (the so-called 'Field of Use' 
restriction). Apache was unwilling to do this and threw a fit. I'm inclined 
to think this fit was more or less fair (as that's not really how 'things 
are done' in open source land, and its very obvious apache would never 
agree to such a clause, so it might have been nice of sun did not let them 
on believing that harmony would ever be qualified as a true 'java'). 
Google, as far as I know, is NOT in hot water over this issue at all, as 
they never claimed that android/dalvik is a 'java' in a way that actually 
upsets the trademarking rules, but it is an important precursor to this 
courtcase, as it explains why Apache Harmony and Sun/Oracle were already 
not the best of friends.

B) You don't infringe on the copyright: You cannot rerelease GPL code as 
BSD code unless you are the copyright holder. Therefore, android, being 
BSD, cannot contain any code from oracle or it would violate the GPL 
license of that code, unless of course its public domain code (Which I 
believe the interface specs are, but either way the inclusion of i.e. 
java.util.InputStream was never the issue). Turns out there are 9 lines in 
the 15 million where the judge has conclusively granted Oracle the finding 
that these lines were stolen. As far as I know, the 'crime', so to speak, 
was on the part of an apache-allied programmer, not a google engineer. The 
judge evidently knows his stuff and basically laughed in Oracle's face when 
they demanded more than a pittance in damages for these 9 lines. These 9 
lines (And a number of other suspect lines) have long since been rewritten.

C) You don't infringe on any patents. Releasing source under GPL2 does not 
give anyone a free ride on your patents. This is an area that has yet to be 
tackled by this court case, but the experts say even if this one swings 
wildly towards oracle, the potential damages are nothing in comparison to 
the copyright claim as in 'B'.


On Wednesday, May 9, 2012 7:40:54 AM UTC+2, kirk wrote:
>
> > 
> > 
> >> Let me try to be a bit more precise here. You can't very well write 
> much 
> >> Java code, without needing to implement an interface or an abstract 
> >> class... or a lot of these actually. The AWT/Swing event system comes 
> to 
> >> mind as one of the most obvious parts of the API where this is true. So 
> >> where would you draw the line... are we only allowed to implement 
> >> interfaces? Extend abstract classes? Where is this stated/formulated? 
>
> I didn't even consider this case but I think it's spot on. 
>
> > 
> > 
>
> > You can even take OpenJDK, fork it, change the API and redistributed it 
> under a new name and the same GPL + CPE license. No problems with the 
> copyright, maybe problems with patents (the old discussion about whether 
> GPLv2 protects enough or not). 
>
> Isn't this essentially what google did? 
>
> -- Kirk 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The 
Java Posse" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/javaposse/-/qxwWmgjGsvYJ.
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.

Reply via email to