| |||||||||||||
GPLv2's implicit patent license and DalvikGPLv2's implicit patent license and DalvikPosted Jun 6, 2011 22:36 UTC (Mon) by dodji (guest, #49817)In reply to: GPLv2's implicit patent license and Dalvik by FlorianMueller Parent article: Android, forking, and control
What I understood from what James said is basically that they could have used Java as is. There would have been no Dalvik.
(Log in to post comments)
GPLv2's implicit patent license and Dalvik Posted Jun 6, 2011 22:39 UTC (Mon) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048) [Link]
Since there are major architectural differences, I assume that Google made an engineering and not only licensing choice.
GPLv2's implicit patent license and Dalvik Posted Jun 7, 2011 2:54 UTC (Tue) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
There are good reasons to believe that it was fundamentally a licensing choice as Google and Sun/Oracle were prepared to sign a agreement as per
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20110511030...
If it was primarily a technical decision, it would have been possible to make tweaks to OpenJDK without having to rewrite it from scratch c.f. IcedTea.
GPLv2's implicit patent license and Dalvik Posted Jun 10, 2011 5:32 UTC (Fri) by ldo (subscriber, #40946) [Link]
I think youre confusing two things: Java code and Dalvik.
Dalvik is a complete byte-code interpreter, which as I understand it has nothing in common with any code from Sunacle; its not even compatible with the Sunacle Java VM. It was introduced for reasons to do with performance and power consumption, not because of an licensing issues with Sunacle Java. Google could choose to use Sunacle Java in future, but Dalvik will still be there, and the Sunacle Java VM will not.
|
|||||||||||||