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 450087
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[13]: PolicyNodeImpl
by ricegf on Tue 16th Nov 2010 02:53 UTC in reply to "RE[12]: PolicyNodeImpl"
ricegf
Member since:
2007-04-25

I'm afraid you've completely missed the point (and with a remarkable number of words, too).

You see, the GPL grants the right to copy only if you conform to its terms. If you don't conform to its terms (which is what Oracle is alleging about Google, I believe), then the GPL's remaining provisions (about which you write with such passion and at such length) don't actually matter a whit. They don't apply.

I have no idea if Google screwed up or if they complied with the terms of the license just fine. But IF Google didn't abide by the GPL, they've violated Oracle's copyright and are liable for whatever remedies the court decrees (which is, of course, the relevance of Jacobsen v. Katzer despite the other differences you list).

It really is just that simple.

Reply Parent Score: 2