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

Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee

Posted Dec 11, 2010 4:26 UTC (Sat) by mikov (guest, #33179)
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

Releasing under a free license doesn't necessarily make software "free". Say, you disassemble MS Word and publish the resulting source under GPL. I don't think many people would argue that the result is "free" by any definition.

Similarly, Java cannot be considered "free" by me and many others if an independent implementation is under real patent threat from Oracle. In the USA I cannot safely use and distribute Harmony or Dalvik. So how can they be considered free? Free for what?

About retroactive GPL revocation. Not all projects are vulnerable. Projects with multiple contributors like Linux, or projects with copyright assignment to FSF, are safe. So it cannot be said that the GPL is especially vulnerable or bad. But there is risk and it would be naive to ignore it.

Of course it is up to you (or your business, your lawyer, etc) to make up your own mind whether GPL revocation is a risk. However deciding it is safe just because other people appear to think it is safe, without knowing their detailed reasoning, is probably not the best strategy.

to post comments

Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee

Posted Dec 11, 2010 7:16 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

Again, we aren't comparing the same things. I don't think disassembling and patent infringement is comparable at all. If Oracle wins a patent lawsuit against Google directly on Harmony code and there isn't any workaround, then it becomes a problem. Until then, it is just a patent lawsuit and we have many of them floating around. At the present situation, Harmony is free software by any reasonable logic.

Yes, the details of GPL licensing can affect different parties in different ways but if so many different vendors and consumers haven't raised such a problem, I don't see why I need to worry about it. It is just hot air. If we are going to listen to random lawyers, there was one claiming that BSD is incompatible with GPL license and many many more weird postulations. If you can find some prominent vendor's legal department or folks like Eben Moglen say it, then I will start paying more attention.

Apache resigns from the Java Community Process executive committee

Posted Dec 13, 2010 16:07 UTC (Mon) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link]

Releasing under a free license doesn't necessarily make software "free". Say, you disassemble MS Word and publish the resulting source under GPL. I don't think many people would argue that the result is "free" by any definition.

Suddenly we have two people trying to prove a point by referring to situations involving the "re-release" of proprietary software. If you don't have permission to redistribute a work, you certainly aren't allowed to put a licence of your choice on it and redistribute it at all, whether you want to apply the GPL or something else to it. So that really has nothing to do with software legitimately distributed under the GPL.