Free platform

> since Oracle (as author and copyright owner) isn't bound by that...

The GPLv2 does bound Oracle. Namely, it can not rescind the permissions it gave to others as part of a software license. This is basic legal theory, you can not tell others “you can do foo, if bar” then change your mind once others have expended resources reaching bar (at least, not in a legal document). Otherwise, no license would be worth the words used in it.

The only thing Oracle can do is define new conditions for new software releases, or relax conditions on old software releases. They are not allowed to add restrictions on old software releases people already licensed under specific terms (and the GPL is worded in such a way the license can be transmitted from user to user and from version to derivatives).

I don't know the legal answer to that, but let's assume you're right and Oracle doesn't need to comply with the GPL in order to distribute. That would mean they can give you a copy of the OpenJDK source code without giving you a copy of the GPL. However, that's not what they did. What they did is, they distributed OpenJDK *with* a legal document saying.

They gave people a copy of the OpenJDK source code with a legal document which has a load of paragraphs that start with "You may...".

If you're right, then you've only proved that they didn't have to give you that legal document. That doesn't change the fact that they *did* give you that legal document, and so, Oracle is bound by that legal document.

Yes/no?