3 ms·
That's true. It seems that alternatively Google could have relicensed their implementation as GPL and not have had to make any technical changes at all. Which s
by guelo 11y ago
That's true. It seems that alternatively Google could have relicensed their implementation as GPL and not have had to make any technical changes at all. Which shows that the only reason Google was maintaining their own implementation, and why they went through the lawsuit was just to keep GPL license out of their Java code. Seems nonsensical.
- yincrash 11y agoGoogle could not relicense APL code they did not write to GPLv2. The Java implementation is a subset of Apache Harmony, which they did not create from scratch.
- tadfisher 11y agoOracle maintains ownership of the OpenJDK project, which is the point here. Google simply relicensing its reimplementation of the Java APIs would not change the fact that the reimplementation is infringing under the law.
- sangnoir 11y ago> Java APIs would not change the fact that the reimplementation is infringing under the law. That's not an established fact at all. There is a whole lawsuit going on about it, if you haven't heard. If the final ruling is that APIs can be copyrighted, I'll change careers and never buy/condone the purchade of an Oracle product for as long as I live.