3 ms·
> since it doesn't matter that you have a license to modify the source code if doing so means you are violating copyright on the APIs I don't understand your a
by dtech 11y ago
> since it doesn't matter that you have a license to modify the source code if doing so means you are violating copyright on the APIs
I don't understand your argument, wouldn't using the license (GPL) imply a license to use and modify the API's? And that would mean you can create your own modified API, provided it is also under GPL.
This doesn't apply to Google's clean-room implementation since that wasn't using the GPL license.
- Someone 11y agoSo, can they take OpenJDK, through a series of commits revert it back to what they have now, release that under the GPL, and be legally in the clear, as long as they don't call it OpenJDK or something that might be confused with it (the license for the name is stricter)?
- icebraining 11y agoI don't see why not; as long as it's derived from GPL licensed code, and they respect the license, they have the right to change it to whatever they want.
- bcg1 11y agoThey don't even have to go through those motions, they could just release what they have under the same license as OpenJDK and grab some of the interface definitions they need from OpenJDK And they wouldn't necessarily be "legally in the clear"... when this is all said and done they may be found to have infringed copyright illegally and will have to pay a price for breaking the law. Complying with the OpenJDK license would only protect them going forward, not for past transgressions. Interesting move on Oracle's part would be to try to prove that Google infringed on OpenJDK's copyright (i.e., violated the GPL)... then under GPLv2 Google could lose their rights to redistribute OpenJDK https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-guide.pdf#subsection.5.2 https://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/compliance-gu...