3 ms·

I am not sure you are familiar with the entire case regarding Sun's public approval of Google's Java use. Oracle argued it was the CEO's personal blog, but the

I am not sure you are familiar with the entire case regarding Sun's public approval of Google's Java use. Oracle argued it was the CEO's personal blog, but the CEO definitely did give a form of "green light" depending upon your interpretation. It's a defense I feel like is easy to do against a large company that "should have known better", but would be considered unfair against a smaller company that was essentially given approval. I won't address the rest of your comment that is out of context since it's missing this important fact. Here's some old HN discussion on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2806771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2806771

ABCLAW 9y ago
I'm familiar with the case. The comment isn't out of context; you (and other posters) need to recognize that IP rights are composite rights, like real estate. In real estate, you can own a plot of land and provide others with permissions associated with the land; maybe they're allowed to walk over a path that runs through your land. That permission is not equivalent to all possible permissions associated with the land - although maybe some ancillary ones are implied in. Maybe people are allowed to bike over the path too, but they certainly aren't allowed to dump broken washing machines there. Similarly, in IP I can grant you a set of rights related to my product without giving you ALL rights related to my product.
- michaelmrose 9y ago
  To use your own analogy it seems like we are only talking about one singular right. Making derivative work thereof. If not can you clarify your position?