3 ms·

it's important to point out that OpenJDK actually is safe. The Java specification has a patent grant clause for compliant implementations, which obviously inclu

by headius 16y ago

it's important to point out that OpenJDK actually is safe. The Java specification has a patent grant clause for compliant implementations, which obviously includes OpenJDK. We can also hope that Sun did their due diligence during the development of Hotspot and during the open-sourcing of OpenJDK to ensure other patents not covered by the grant would not affect it (but of course we can't be sure). Outside of that, it's no more at risk of patent attacks then any other piece of open-source software.

bad_user 16y ago
> The Java specification has a patent grant clause for compliant implementations, which obviously includes OpenJDK OpenJDK is safe because AFAIK the GPLv2 license also has a patent grant. But if you want to take Apache Harmony and trim it down so it fits on a mobile device or on a pen ... the very essence of open-source ... then you're fucked. If you want to take some idea from OpenJDK and use it in Jikes; a cross-pollination of ideas (not copyright infringement) which is again ... the very essence of open-source ... then you're fucked again. Java is not an open-platform. It never was.
- delackner 16y ago
  Taking some patented "idea" from a GPL'd piece of code and re-implementing it in your own separately licensed code is not something that the GPL gives you the right to do. Your definition of open-platform requires that the code not be covered by any patents. Anyway, the best thing that can come out of all of this is more deep-pocketed players angry with the software patent system.
  - bad_user 16y ago
    But my point isn't about what the GPL gives you the right to do. I don't see the Linux kernel devs getting sued or suing the *BSD kernel devs, although they share ideas all the time. Also, people scale/modify the Linux/BSD kernel to fit their needs all the time. The Java patent grant only applies if you're not building a subset/superset of Java or if you're extending OpenJDK. But these aren't enough ... some people do not want GPL. That's what I mean by "the spirit of open-source" ... it's a collaboration effort from which everyone benefits. And as of this recent announcement, OpenJDK is open-source only by license ... if that wasn't clear already.
joe_the_user 16y ago
Hmm, A purist might mention that one would like more than bare safety from a platform. If you start using OpenJDK for, say, desktop applications, you wind-up restricted from switching JVMs, adapting a Java JVM for mobile applications and so-forth. IE, you "have less freedom".

by headius 16y ago

bad_user 16y ago

> The Java specification has a patent grant clause for compliant implementations, which obviously includes OpenJDK OpenJDK is safe because AFAIK the GPLv2 license also has a patent grant. But if you want to take Apache Harmony and trim it down so it fits on a mobile device or on a pen ... the very essence of open-source ... then you're fucked. If you want to take some idea from OpenJDK and use it in Jikes; a cross-pollination of ideas (not copyright infringement) which is again ... the very essence of open-source ... then you're fucked again. Java is not an open-platform. It never was.

delackner 16y ago
Taking some patented "idea" from a GPL'd piece of code and re-implementing it in your own separately licensed code is not something that the GPL gives you the right to do. Your definition of open-platform requires that the code not be covered by any patents. Anyway, the best thing that can come out of all of this is more deep-pocketed players angry with the software patent system.
- bad_user 16y ago
  But my point isn't about what the GPL gives you the right to do. I don't see the Linux kernel devs getting sued or suing the *BSD kernel devs, although they share ideas all the time. Also, people scale/modify the Linux/BSD kernel to fit their needs all the time. The Java patent grant only applies if you're not building a subset/superset of Java or if you're extending OpenJDK. But these aren't enough ... some people do not want GPL. That's what I mean by "the spirit of open-source" ... it's a collaboration effort from which everyone benefits. And as of this recent announcement, OpenJDK is open-source only by license ... if that wasn't clear already.

joe_the_user 16y ago

Hmm, A purist might mention that one would like more than bare safety from a platform. If you start using OpenJDK for, say, desktop applications, you wind-up restricted from switching JVMs, adapting a Java JVM for mobile applications and so-forth. IE, you "have less freedom".