3 ms·

Not in my opinion. The GPL is a license that depends on accepting the license -- or not. It is always acceptable not to accept the license and write your own.

Not in my opinion. The GPL is a license that depends on accepting the license -- or not. It is always acceptable not to accept the license and write your own. That's part of software freedom. In fact this judgement puts GNU Classpath in a very tenuous position because their code is also not based on the the GPLed version of Java (having been written before Java was GPLed). Even GNU is now in jeopardy because who the heck owns the copyright for POSIX??? Is there any license language in the specification saying that you can implement it? I have been too scared to look up until now. This is incredibly important because all of the GNU tools and the Linux kernel have been implemented independently and are not derivations of things like BSD. No. This is a nightmare for free software because it means that every single RFC in existence now needs a license thanks to copyright lasting for the life of the author plus 95 years. It means that we can never interoperate with services that choose not to grant a license to their API. Even if you reverse engineer it, expect a lawsuit having to defend yourself using a fair use defence. And if you live in most of the world that doesn't have fair use. Well, you are just screwed. The only thing this means is that free software will be marginalized. We'll be set back 20 years.

BuckRogers 10y ago
We disagree overall. In sum, I think it's a distinct possibility free software wins with an Oracle victory. Your position is that everything is fine and dandy today. I disagree because otherwise this wouldn't be in court. There are legitimate issues that need resolved, neither Google or Oracle are good guys. Google created their own problem trying to cut corners/save money and it backfired. They admitted in their emails it was a risk and they went for it. But I did want to clarify one thing you said because I found it confusing. > The GPL is a license that depends on accepting the license -- or not. It is always acceptable not to accept the license and write your own. If you do use GPL code you have to also license it as GPL. Any derivative work you create containing even a smallest portion of the previously GPL licensed software must also be licensed under the GPL license. That's what Google meant when they called it infectious and viral. Unfortunately for these large corporations, it was also the solution (other than doing the heavy lifting in-house as Apple did). When you don't accept GPL'd code, you write your own code and license (or adopt another).

BuckRogers 10y ago

We disagree overall. In sum, I think it's a distinct possibility free software wins with an Oracle victory. Your position is that everything is fine and dandy today. I disagree because otherwise this wouldn't be in court. There are legitimate issues that need resolved, neither Google or Oracle are good guys. Google created their own problem trying to cut corners/save money and it backfired. They admitted in their emails it was a risk and they went for it. But I did want to clarify one thing you said because I found it confusing. > The GPL is a license that depends on accepting the license -- or not. It is always acceptable not to accept the license and write your own. If you do use GPL code you have to also license it as GPL. Any derivative work you create containing even a smallest portion of the previously GPL licensed software must also be licensed under the GPL license. That's what Google meant when they called it infectious and viral. Unfortunately for these large corporations, it was also the solution (other than doing the heavy lifting in-house as Apple did). When you don't accept GPL'd code, you write your own code and license (or adopt another).