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.
Thread beginning with comment 450087
To view parent comment, click here.
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

RE[14]: PolicyNodeImpl
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Nov 2010 12:58 in reply to "RE[13]: PolicyNodeImpl"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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.



Indeed. Google made the source code available in a git repository.

If because of that they are somehow found guilty of copyright infringement, then indeed they may be forced to comply with the terms of the license for the code.

Google might have to comply with the GPL. Google might have to make the source code available to the public. Google might, for example, be forced to make the source code available in a git repository ...

Oh wait. Do I perchance spot a teeny tiny hole in your utterly circular logic there ... Hmmmm?

I have to say it ... it is you who have utterly missed the point.

The entire effort of Oracles lawsuit will amount to Google changing the license of code it already makes available from one open source license to another.

How does that help Oracle in any way? Why would this outcome be worth Oracle's time and expense? For that matter, how does it hurt Google?

Sheesh!

Edited 2010-11-16 13:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2