Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 14th Nov 2010 22:41 UTC
Legal About time! Google has responded to Oracle's amended complaint in the big Oracle v Google patent and copyright hoedown, and it's a contradictory grab bag of various defences, basically throwing everything and seeing what sticks - a normal and common course of events in cases like this. There are some juicy claims in there.
Permalink for comment 450054
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[13]: PolicyNodeImpl
by indieinvader on Mon 15th Nov 2010 22:02 UTC in reply to "RE[12]: PolicyNodeImpl"
indieinvader
Member since:
2009-08-11

Hold on, what's the problem here? What Google did is perfectly legal: There is nothing in the GPL that says you can't decompile GPL'ed binaries or redistribute said decompiled code; it's still licensed under the GPL.

I would also mention that putting code in the same source tree doesn't make all of the code part of the same work. For example, in one of my projects I have rhino.jar and closure-compiler.jar in my build directory. Rhino is MPL/GPL'd and Closure Compiler is Apache Licensed but my project is New BSD licensed; the same goes for jQuery. Am I infringing on Mozilla and Google's copyrights to their respective works? No. These tools are in my source tree for testing and minifying, nothing else.

Reply Parent Score: 1