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 t

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).