> From: opensolaris-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:opensolaris- > discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey > > Where are you coming from? You have no idea what you're talking about, > or > else, you're talking about a different case. If we're talking about > SunOracle suing Google over java and davlik, then absolutely, saying > it's > about GPL means you have no clue. > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100815110101756 > Read it. > > There is no GPL anywhere. Not in java or davlik. And the case isn't > about > copyright.
I apologize for using such strong language. I think I see the source for some confusion: Wikipedia says java is GPL. If you google around, you'll find that some version of java was released under GPL in 2006. However, if you look around ... it is not readily available today, at least, not in all the places you would be most likely to look for java downloads. Today, if you go to sun.com, oracle.com, or java.com, to download JRE, JDK, or the source code for them, you'll find that the source code is released under SCSL, and the binary distribution released under Oracle License, which is the one I mentioned prohibiting reverse engineering, decompiling, or use in nuclear facilities. There may be an argument: That google would have been indemnified from oracle lawsuit if only they had started with the GPL version of java, and continued developing it under GPL ... But google didn't do that. So it's irrelevant to the present lawsuit. _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
