Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 04:25 AM EDT |
And if it is a relevant defence for Google why aren't they raising it but
instead claiming clean room development? Clean room would imply that
they weren't deriving from a GPL release.
Assuming Dalvik/Android is used under the GPL have Google complied
with the GPL? As it is GPL not LGPL does software designed particularly to
use the libraries (for the Google App store) have to be released under the
GPL?
We all hate Oracle but this case isn't SCO. At the very least there are real
open legal questions and I don't think Google is as clean and rightious as
IBM, Novell and the Linux developers. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 02:09 PM EDT |
An implementation of the Java Development Kit is available under GPL2.
That does not put the Java Language under the GPL2, only some tools for
processing files that are written in that Language.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 09:48 AM EDT |
By not giving back.
I'd like to know what they haven't given back? If it was submitted into the JCP
it seems covered.
If it was through their own publication under the Apache license I don't see
much liability and not withstanding the FSF's position the the Apache license is
not compatible with the GPLv2, Android does not belong to the FSF and I'm not
sure Google agrees with them on that, some people don't seem to.
---
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 | # ]
|
|