|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 12:52 PM EDT |
What is there to license?
They didn't use Sun code.
They implemented APIs based on specs detailed in a
copyrighted document, but didn't reproduce that document,
hence no copyright infringement (unless copyrights now
extend to abstract ideas as Oracle seem to want).
I'm pretty sure harmony doesn't have a license, as there is
no licensable IP being used. Just like Oracle doesn't have a
license for the colour Yellow.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 02:38 PM EDT |
Hmmm, that would be a prejudicial statement to make to the jury.
Apache certainly had rights that they could grant. They created an independent
implementation. Sun and Oracle were involved in the oversight, never
challenging the right to make that independent implementation.
Years later Oracle want to give the jury the impression that Apache created an
outlaw implementation that has just been brought to their attention.
If Oracle wants such a statement, they should use their time to put a witness
from Apache on the stand. I'm certain that's a basket of dirty laundry that
they don't want dumped in front of the jury. Especially Oracle's early
position, pre-Sun, and that Sun reneged on their commitments.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, April 23 2012 @ 08:59 PM EDT |
Other than the obvious rangeCheck function that was
inadvertently copied and a de minimus infraction, I don't
understand the nature of the copyright violation Oracle is
claiming; unless carry over into the source code of the API
specification's sequence, structure, organisation (SSO )
does not qualify as Scenes a faire. Although, Robert Van
Nest took pains to show that various source codes of
apparently various SSO may be composed from the same API
specification, I suppose an Abstraction-Filtration-
Comparison test (AFC) will be needed to quantify what SSO
elements have been copied. Yet this may all be moot as
follows:
If per Dr. Mark Reinhold's testimony "... APIs can change
like wildfire", then per Ian Al's comment "...the API that
went rushing by just as Harmony took a copy.." might be at
issue". However, reading my fellow Groklawians' commentary
it would seem that Android is a mongrel inheriting
overlaping licensing -- possibly conflicting ? -- rights.
I have read these two open letters by Apache Foundation:
1 ) http://www.apache.org/jcp/sunopenletter.html
2 ) http://apache.org/jcp/sunopenletterfaq.html
As soon as I read the words "... contractually bound to
comply..." , I am reminded of the controversy between Novell
and SCO as to whether the ATA did or did not transfer the
Unix copyrights.
Where some of the API specifications of the 37 packages at
issue have been developed in collaboration ( Java Community
Process, JCP ), then do terms of the Java Specification
Participation Agreement(s) (JSPS ) compel or preclude
transfer of any property rights ?? ie. Are some of the
Harmony libraries, and by inheiritance the Android
Libraries, encumbered ?? -- perhaps favourably ??
Do applicable Apache License(s) and GPL license(s) alter
matters ??
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|