Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 9th May 2007 10:08 UTC, submitted by Ford Prefect
Java Sun Microsystems has announced the release of an open-source version of its Java Development Kit for Java Platform Standard Edition. Sun has contributed the software to the OpenJDK Community as free software under the GNU GPLv2. Sun also announced that OpenJDK-based implementations can use the JCK (Java SE 6 Technical Compatibility Kit) to establish compatibility with the Java SE 6 specification. OpenBSD has already started importing the release.
Thread beginning with comment 238909
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Ah well
by smitty on Wed 9th May 2007 20:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Ah well"
smitty
Member since:
2005-10-13

By your logic anything compiled/written with gcc/g++ c/c++ would have to be open source.

It means exactly that; since the work is derived from the GPL program, that means it is a derivative work. That's not 'by my logic'; that's what the law says.


People have been creating proprietary programs with GCC for decades, and AFAIK no one has ever challenged their right to do so, not even Stallman. So forgive me, but I'm going to continue to doubt your views are correct when apparently every lawyer in the world disagrees with you.

BTW, taking your argument to it's logical conclusion, everything that you create in Visual Studio must also comply with it's license, right? i.e. belong to Microsoft. Therefore, it isn't possible to own proprietary software that you compile in Visual Studio either.

Edited 2007-05-09 20:18

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: Ah well
by Almafeta on Thu 10th May 2007 02:41 in reply to "RE[5]: Ah well"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

BTW, taking your argument to it's logical conclusion, everything that you create in Visual Studio must also comply with it's license, right? i.e. belong to Microsoft. Therefore, it isn't possible to own proprietary software that you compile in Visual Studio either.


Erm... no. I'm not arguing that all software must be licensed under the compiler's license. That's goofy. I'm just pointing out what the GPL says. The GPL requires derived works to be put under the GPL; the Visual Studio EULA does not require derived works to be put under the EULA. Many (most?) Microsoft EULAs go out of their way to define works made using those products to be the property (and thus, the responsibility) of the creator.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: Ah well
by smitty on Thu 10th May 2007 04:20 in reply to "RE[6]: Ah well"
smitty Member since:
2005-10-13

That's goofy.

Well, at least we agree on one point.

The GPL requires derived works to be put under the GPL

Yes, but what in the world makes you think that compiling an unrelated program in a compiler makes it "derived" from that compiler? It's generated, not derived. To derive from that compiler, you'd need to take code, or at least algorithms or ideas from it, and at that point it doesn't matter where you compile it, it would still be a derived work.

the Visual Studio EULA does not require derived works to be put under the EULA

I have to admit, I've never read the VS EULA. Still, I'm quite certain they don't allow you to create a derived work from it - you can't copy the VS installation CD and add a couple features to it, then resell. Obviously, though, they let you do whatever you want with programs you create yourself. Just like every other compiler...


Do you understand what a compiler does? It's basically a translator. If I wrote a speech in German, then had some program translate it into Russian, the speech still belongs to me and I can do whatever I want to with it. Just because the translator was GPL software doesn't mean my speech somehow gets infected and I then have to release it under the GPL as well. If I create a picture in GIMP, or a document in OOo, or a webpage in Firefox I don't have any obligation to release those under a certain license either.

Edited 2007-05-10 04:31

Reply Parent Score: 5