5 ms·
The sequence, structure and organization of those method signatures, in those 37 Java packages, were all GPL'd in the OpenJDK in 2007 by Sun. Regardless of whet
by bitmapbrother 10y ago
The sequence, structure and organization of those method signatures, in those 37 Java packages, were all GPL'd in the OpenJDK in 2007 by Sun. Regardless of whether API's can be copyrighted or not, Google had every right to use the code Sun GPL'd.
- Oletros 10y agoGoogle didn't use OpenJDK, they used Apache Harmony implementation
- mjw1007 10y agoThat's true, but the availability of OpenJDK (which, after all, Google have now switched to) weakens Oracle's argument on the "Effect on the market" factor.
- dragandj 10y agoBut OpenJDK is GPL. If Google licensed their Android Java as GPL, I guess they'd be OK. However, Google's Java is NOT GPL.
- wtallis 10y agoIf the "structure, sequence, and organization" of APIs is a copyrightable work in its own right, then couldn't Google make a GPL-licensed derivative SSO (Android's API) but put their implementation under a separate license? Has anyone done a legal analysis of how the GPL's copyleft provisions would apply to this new kind of copyrighted work?
- dragandj 10y agoNo. Everything that gets linked to GPL has to be GPL.
- bitmapbrother 10y agoThat's not true. OpenJDK is licensed under the GPL v2 with the Classpath Exception.
- dragandj 10y agoFYI, Classpath exception does not remove GPL from OpenJDK, or enable anyone to create a non-GPL JDK. It allows you to create Java programs that are themselves not GPL.
- emiliobumachar 10y agoThe Lesser GPL exists solely to allow linking to non-free programs. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.en.html
- Oletros 10y agoWell, they used the license used by Apache Foundation when they developed Apache Harmony. They couldn't change the license