|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 21 2012 @ 12:30 PM EDT |
Apache appears to have a right to release Harmony for any purpose / use AS LONG
AS THEY DON'T CALL IT 'JAVA'.
To call it 'Java', they have to pass a compatibility test, only available from
Oracle/Sun. But as a condition of obtaining the test Oracle/Sun imposes a
'field of use'(?) limitation. Apache did not accept that limitation, did not
obtain the test, and therefore does not call Harmony 'Java'.
But that has nothing to do with copyright, its purely a trademark issue. As far
as I can tell, neither Apache nor Google has violated, or is accused of
violating Oracle/Sun's 'Java' trademark.
Not a lawyer
JG[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jjs on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 05:49 AM EDT |
Then why didn't Oracle go after Apache? Is it because Sun knew about Apache for
years (Apache sat on the JCB), had welcomed the Harmony project, knew they
didn't call Harmony Java, because Sun refused to provide the TCK (and they
couldn't refuse to provide it unless Apache had asked, thus ensuring Sun knew
Apache's efforts, and that the sticking point was the Field of Use restriction)?
If Apache Harmony is protected by Estoppel, are not those efforts derived from
Apache (such as Dalvik) ALSO so protected?
---
(Note IANAL, I don't play one on TV, etc, consult a practicing attorney, etc,
etc)
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 07:51 PM EDT |
If the only difference is the terms of the Apache License or the GPL, then it's
hard to see how Oracle suffers much in damages. Both licenses are Open Licenses
and allow the software to be distributed and modified by whoever wants to.
The only difference is the copyleft provisions of the GPL which would seem to
cut against Oracle's position.
Oracle has repeatedly said that Google did not follow the GPL by not giving back
to the community. My question to those better informed on the details is what
has Google not given back?
It's my understanding that the Apache license is compatible with GPL v3 and that
the FSF claimed that the Apache License was not compatible with GPL v2.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
