|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 10:38 AM EDT |
Not true. The code is GPL. You can do anything to the code you want within the
terms of that license. You just can't call it a compatible java implementation.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Sunday, April 22 2012 @ 12:53 PM EDT |
1. The license for the TCK is not relevant for anyone who is not going to have
anything to do with the TCK - That's almost a tautology.
2. The TCK is only necessary for anyone who wants to produce a complete
compatible implementation of the Java SDK that they can call "Java"
using Oracle's trademarks and logos.
3. Any other rights that Oracle chooses to grant to someone who produces a
complete implementation without subsetting or supersetting are rights that they
grant to those people - They are not necessarily rights that other people cannot
get by other means. Since Google has not produced such a complete
implementation, any rights granted under such conditions are not relevant to
them.
4. OpenJDK is distributed under GPLv2+CPE. That allows anyone to write software
based on it. That has to include the right to take 37 packages from it and write
a version of the software that has the same package names and hierarchy, same
class names in the same packages, same public methods and fields, and write
their own implementation code for the classes. If, as Oracle claims, that
creates a derivative work of OpenJDK, then the GPLv2+CPE license under which
OpenJDK is distributed allows that derivative work to be distributed under
GPLv2+CPE and the CPE part of that allows it to be distributed with other Java
class files that have their own license, such as Apache. The GPLv2+CPE license
does not allow one to call the derivative work "Java" or use any other
trademarked names or logos. TCK and specification licenses do not come into play
at all.
5. Google is not distributing the implementations of classes in the 37 packages
under GPLv2+CPE or equivalent. They claim that they don't have to because just
the package name and hierarchy, the class names within the packages, and the
public field names, and public method signatures do not comprise material
protect4ed by copyright.
6. If Oracle is correct, then at the most Google would have to slap a GPLv2+CPE
license on the code for the 37 packages. I have no idea what is possible in
terms of paying for damages or other remedies when dealing with a GPL violation
rather than other types of copyright infringement. But TCK is still not
involved.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 10:01 AM EDT |
I've said this elsewhere, but I'll say it here too:
The Java API *Specification* is a recipie.
Dalvik is the cake.
You don't need a lisence to the recipie to use it to bake a cake. That would
just be silly.
So why is anyone talking about anything GPL? Dalvik took code from Harmony,
which is under an Apache lisence, which explicitly allows you to do that.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
