| First, OpenJDK is GPL-2 not GPL-3. I don't see how the GPL-3 is relevant. Are
you suggesting that Oracle is planning to change the license to GPL-3? I don't
think that is likely.
Second, the ambiguity about patent protection in the
GPL-2 is well known. That was one of the main reasons there was a big push to
create the GPL-3. If you want to be safe then you can't rely on GPL-2 to
provide patent protection. Software patents really weren't on the radar when
the GPL-2 was created. The article says "you don’t get a license to the
software patents buried in the OpenJDK code" because you don’t get a license
to the software patents buried in the OpenJDK code. This is in contrast to
the post-TCK license where you do get an explicit license to the
patents.
To put it another way for you, the GPL-2 explicitly covers
copyrights. Patents are the only other form of "IP" (referred to in the JSPA)
that would be relevant. IANAL but to me that implies Sun is of the opinion
that the GPL-2 does not give you patent protection. Even if, as you say, the
GPL-2 implies it also covers patents, the JSPA implies that it doesn't. I admit
that since this is unsettled law, it is possible you could win in a court of
law. It is also possible you could lose. This was a unnecessary risk. Why
take such a big risk when you don't have to? Harmony was much
safer.
---
Our job is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
