| |||||||||||||
Oracle sues Google over use of Java in Android (ars technica)Oracle sues Google over use of Java in Android (ars technica)Posted Aug 13, 2010 10:44 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183)In reply to: Oracle sues Google over use of Java in Android (ars technica) by rahulsundaram Parent article: Oracle sues Google over use of Java in Android (ars technica)
> GPLv2 has a implicit patent grant and GPLv3 has a explicit one. If Google was distributing OpenJDK and Oracle sued Google for Java patents, GPL would certainly be in play.
So you are saying that if Oracle distributes code that they own under the GPL, that imposes obligations (in this case on their use of patents) on Oracle? (Disregarding the details of this issue.)
(Log in to post comments)
Oracle sues Google over use of Java in Android (ars technica) Posted Aug 13, 2010 11:23 UTC (Fri) by jjs (guest, #10315) [Link]
> So you are saying that if Oracle distributes code that they own under the GPL, that imposes obligations (in this case on their use of patents) on Oracle? (Disregarding the details of this issue.)
Under GPL3 - yes. That those using THAT CODE that they GPL'd and was received under the GPL3 have a patent grant. Note that if you do your own clean-room reimplementation, get the code under a different license, or use different code that what that patent covered, you're out of lock (IMNAL, advice worth less than the electrons to display, etc).
Oracle sues Google over use of Java in Android (ars technica) Posted Aug 13, 2010 11:27 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> Under GPL3 - yes. That those using THAT CODE that they GPL'd and was received under the GPL3 have a patent grant.
Got you.
Oracle sues Google over use of Java in Android (ars technica) Posted Aug 13, 2010 14:15 UTC (Fri) by jjs (guest, #10315) [Link]
Not certain what you mean. Note IANAL, so I don't want to comment on the GPL2 implicit promise (since Oracle without a doubt distributed code under GPL2, thus indicating it could be further distributed by others without need for relicensign). However, GPL3 makes the implicit explicit.
If you want a legal answer, consult a lawyer.
Oracle sues Google over use of Java in Android (ars technica) Posted Aug 13, 2010 14:38 UTC (Fri) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> Not certain what you mean.
I meant "got you" as in "now I see what you mean".
>Note IANAL
Hm, perhaps estimed subscriber number 1 ought to add some clear text on the page that all commenters are NAL unless they explicitly say the are?
Oracle sues Google over use of Java in Android (ars technica) Posted Aug 13, 2010 15:42 UTC (Fri) by jjs (guest, #10315) [Link]
Understand your "got you" now - it was "you understand what I wrote/meant" - my apologies for misunderstanding, esp if it seemed an attack/harsh.
Regarding point 2 - most discussions here are not legal, but it would ensure everyone knew more clearly the lawyers here.
Oracle sues Google over use of Java in Android (ars technica) Posted Aug 13, 2010 18:00 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
And also under the GPLv2 - there's an implicit patent grant in the GPLv2.
|
|||||||||||||