decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
| 342 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Am I missing something here?
Authored by: maroberts on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 04:00 AM EDT
There may be a conflict between the GPL and the Android license, which is Apache
and allows you to not publish the code which relies on this file, unlike the
GPL.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Am I missing something here?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 05:29 AM EDT
And to make matters worse, the reason that file is in OpenJDK is because Google
contributed it in the first place!

http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2009-June/001937.html

So, really, first there is Oracle going "whohoo! cool! thanks, we take that
and integrate it" and then it suddenly is "ehe, wait, you ehm, kind of
copied those lines, bad! bad! bad!"...

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Your case should at least have some substance
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 07:29 AM EDT


And so long as you choose your words carefully you make make 9 lines sound like
"The Whole of Android".

You must remember to wave a lot and distract your audience with tales of how
hurt you are when you do though.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

GPL does not equal public domain
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 18 2012 @ 12:53 PM EDT

Public domain allows anyone to do anything with it.

Non public domain falls under Copyright Law that governs such things as attribution, copying, first sale exhaustion, licensing, and such.

If I author some code and license it under the GPL, Copyright Law would not allow you to take that code and drop the BSD license on it instead. I did not authorize you to license my code under different terms after all.

The GPL requires that a person redistributing the work with changes must provide the source code (or an appropriate offer). The BSD license does not allow that.

The Apache license is a lot closer to being like the BSD license then it is to being like the GPL.

As P.J. said long ago:

    If Google had just used the GPL released code... they could have avoided all this mess!
Except maybe the patents of course... we're used to BSF bringing what appears to be baseless cases.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )