Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 28th Oct 2010 20:07 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Legal Now, this is an interesting development in the ongoing war against Android. Oracle didn't just sue Google for allegedly infringing its Java patents; it also claimed copyright infringement. Oracle has amended its complaint, and, fair is fair, they've got the code to prove it: indeed, Android contains code that appears to be copied verbatim from Java - mind you, appears. However, the code in question comes straight from Apache's Harmony project, which raises the question - would a respected and long-established cornerstone of the open source world really accept tainted code in the first place?
Thread beginning with comment 447528
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I dont get it
by panzi on Thu 28th Oct 2010 22:13 UTC
panzi
Member since:
2006-01-22

The original file from Oracle (Sun) states it's licensed under the terms of GPLv2 (even with Classpath exception). So what's the problem? Does Google violate the GPL and has licensed Dalvik under a incompatible license? So Oracle actually defends the GPL and hence free/open source software? Then Oracle would be the good guy here.

Can anyone tell me what's going on, please?

Reply Score: 4

RE: I dont get it
by grfgguvf on Thu 28th Oct 2010 23:04 in reply to "I dont get it"
grfgguvf Member since:
2006-09-25

Sun released Java under GPL (as OpenJDK). But Oracle's lawyers are apparently unaware of this

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: I dont get it
by sukru on Fri 29th Oct 2010 00:47 in reply to "I dont get it"
sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

There are two issues.

One is the file is re-published in a different license. (Remember the discussion where BSD code was found in Linux kernel code? It would be OK to copy the code, even relicense under GPL, only if they had attributed to the original author. But an employee wanted to take the credit).

The second one is with patents (subject of the other lawsuit). Even if you publish your code under GPL, there are some limitations due to patents (this is why we have GPL3 changed that provisions).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: I dont get it
by nt_jerkface on Fri 29th Oct 2010 00:59 in reply to "I dont get it"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Here is the GPL version:
http://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/classpath/gnu/java/security/x509...

Note the variable and method order in all 3 files.

The file in question is not from the GPL implementation.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I dont get it
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 29th Oct 2010 01:04 in reply to "RE: I dont get it"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Correction: the file is not from Classpath. The OP is referring to Sun's version of this class which is also GPL licensed. The Classpath file is from 2004, Sun's variant from 2006.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I dont get it
by miker on Fri 29th Oct 2010 13:26 in reply to "RE: I dont get it"
miker Member since:
2009-07-08

They aren't talking about the GNU classpath, the are talking about OpenJDK, not the same product.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: I dont get it
by metalf8801 on Fri 29th Oct 2010 01:33 in reply to "I dont get it"
metalf8801 Member since:
2010-03-22

Dalvik is licensed under the Apache License 2.0 which is not compatible with GPLv2

Reply Parent Score: 3