|
|
|
| Authored by: Christian on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 12:53 PM EDT |
Oracle's argument about the concerns over fragmentation of Java are clearly
shown to have no origin in fact. Sun didn't mind fragmentation one bit, as the
GPL would allow all java subsets and supersets.
Will Oracle pay any price for repeatedly making this argument when the facts
show it to be a complete fantasy?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 02:45 PM EDT |
| Al la Crocodile Dundee, "That's not a footgun, THIS is a footgun!" [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Crocodile_Dundee on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 07:40 PM EDT |
Let's say that Java was released as GPL in its entirety.
Clearly if I wish to distribute a modified version, I must do so with source,
and Google doesn't do that (let's assume for the sake of the argument that
Google's code is a derivative work).
Can I take part of a GPLed work and write propriety code around it (which
doesn't link to it) and it be free of the GPL? I think I can (possibly with
some constraints).
So... Are the API specifications linked to anything? By definition, since
they're not executable code, they're not. I think my independent implementation
of the code could be distributed as propriety as long as I release the GPL part
-- which is the API.
I realise the GPL probably doesn't foresee the API being something that is
copyrightable in and of itself (or indeed at all), but I do recall someone
(perhaps even RMS) suggesting that one of the alternatives to using GPL code --
if you don't like the license -- is to write your own code. In this case, that
appears to me to be *exactly* what Google did.
So we come back to the original question. If the API can be separately
copyrightable, AND if it was released under the GPL, does the GPL allow me to
distribute a closed source implementation of it?
---
---
That's not a law suit. *THIS* is a law suit![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
