Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee [LWN.net]

Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee

Posted Dec 13, 2010 2:39 UTC (Mon) by jmalcolm (guest, #8876)
In reply to: Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee by rahulsundaram
Parent article: Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee

If an implementation does not pass the TCK then it explicitly does not have a patent grant from Oracle. They are very clear about this.

To my mind, this means that any implementation that has not passed the TCK is not "free" in the libre sense. This includes any modified version of the GPL version released by Oracle. It is really not available at zero cost either as you would have to license the patents for money.

Just because Oracle has not gotten around to suing you does not make it free.

What definition are you using? Can I download a pirated version of Windows and call that "free"? I mean, just because I explicitly do not have the legal right to use it means nothing as long as I can get a hold of it right? That seems to be what you are saying.

What is the difference between a GPL version that I cannot legalll modify and a commercially licensed version?

(Log in to post comments)

Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee

Posted Dec 13, 2010 9:22 UTC (Mon) by jmalcolm (guest, #8876) [Link]

IANAL, but they "could" sue you for violating their patents.

Some people believe that the GPL version 2 gives an "implicit" patent grant. Section 7 of the GPL does seem to imply that, if I modify GPL software and redistribute it, I must be implicitly granting patent rights to my changes. Otherwise I would not have the right to redistribute the original GPL code (which I did).

However, if I am the original author of the software that I release under the GPL version 2, then Section 7 (or indeed any other part of the GPL) does not obligate me to do anything.

It is likely that you would be able to argue in court that it was "reasonable" to assume that you could use the GPL software without violating the authors patents if the original author did not mention patents when they released the code. Again, an "implicit" patent grant.

In the case of Java however, Oracle has "explicitly" stated that you "do not" have patent protection unless you exactly implement the Java spec.

Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee

Posted Dec 14, 2010 1:10 UTC (Tue) by jamesh (guest, #1159) [Link]

I don't quite follow your argument. I don't dispute that Oracle is not bound by the GPL: as copyright holders they are free to distribute copies of the software under whatever license they want.

But the copy I received from Oracle was licensed under the GPL, and that says I can modify, redistribute and distribute modified versions. If the code they gave me exercises their patents, then a court is going to rule that Oracle licensed my use of those patents to the extent necessary to exercise my rights under the GPL. That is the implicit patent grant people are talking about.

Note also that if Oracle were to assert that they hadn't given you the patent rights necessary to modify, redistribute and distribute modified versions of OpenJDK, then no one would be able to redistribute the copies of OpenJDK that they received from Oracle (e.g. your favourite Linux distro). Because if they can't pass on those rights, they have no right to distribute the code.

So can you point out where Oracle has explicitly stated that OpenJDK users do not have the patent rights required to exercise their rights under the GPL?