4 ms·

Wouldn't a fork be running smack into a patent suit? I confess to not understanding the Java ecosystem at all, but I do know that Oracle just sued Google over

by rwl 16y ago

Wouldn't a fork be running smack into a patent suit? I confess to not understanding the Java ecosystem at all, but I do know that Oracle just sued Google over their alternative Java implementation...how could a fork avoid this?

btilly 16y ago
If you start with existing GPL code from Oracle, then you have an implicit patent license. But your code has to be under the GPL. If you meet the "Technology Compatibility Kit", then you're an official Java and have a license. Unfortunately Sun was not in the habit of giving access to the TCK to people who were doing things they did not like with Java, and there is no reason to believe that Oracle will be more generous. Google's problem was that they didn't want GPLed code (wouldn't work for the vendors who want to customize Android), and Sun wouldn't give them access to the TCK. So anyone can create a GPLed fork, or someone who already has access to the TCK (eg IBM) can fork as long as they maintain complete compatibility with the TCK.
- lhnn 16y ago
  So implementing the JVM under the GPL is legal and patent free? A group of companies could get behind an independent JVM already in progress, refine it and back it, without Oracle interference?
  - wmf 16y ago
    No, you only get patent protection if you use Oracle's GPL code (OpenJDK). If you write your own (e.g. GCJ, Kaffe) there's less protection.
    - lhnn 16y ago
      So someone could fork OpenJDK indefinitely without merging and be protected? Where is all of this documented? Where is the primary source on patent/licensing dangers of (writing/forking a JVM|creating your own "version" of Java)? I don't like asking a lot of questions, but I don't know where to look.
      - jsmcgd 16y ago
        Reading the GPL should answer a lot of your questions. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
    - apgwoz 16y ago
      > No, you only get patent protection if you use Oracle's GPL code (OpenJDK). If you write your own (e.g. GCJ, Kaffe) there's less protection. Which leads to the question, how much of the original fork must you maintain in order to be safe?
- bad_user 16y ago
  The GPLv2 patents provision is rather weak, and it is extremely unclear if derivate works of OpenJDK are protected. In case you haven't realized it, Oracle's intent is to effectively kill open-source Java.
  - joe_the_user 16y ago
    It would be extremely difficult to sue someone who for patent infringement when they were following the letter of a GPL you issued. The law still involves a modicum of common sense. Stepping up to a judge and saying "yeah, I did say he could do that but I had an extra secret thing written on my shirtsleeve saying he couldn't" just doesn't wouldn't fly well however you try to reword it... IANAL YMMV of course... The weird system of Microsoft-Novel is closer to the way a sinister patent take-over could work, though; a third party who never GPL'd any code walks in and claims everyone owes them royalties, maybe. They then play divide and conquer, with the aid of some shills in the audience.

by rwl 16y ago

btilly 16y ago

If you start with existing GPL code from Oracle, then you have an implicit patent license. But your code has to be under the GPL. If you meet the "Technology Compatibility Kit", then you're an official Java and have a license. Unfortunately Sun was not in the habit of giving access to the TCK to people who were doing things they did not like with Java, and there is no reason to believe that Oracle will be more generous. Google's problem was that they didn't want GPLed code (wouldn't work for the vendors who want to customize Android), and Sun wouldn't give them access to the TCK. So anyone can create a GPLed fork, or someone who already has access to the TCK (eg IBM) can fork as long as they maintain complete compatibility with the TCK.

lhnn 16y ago
So implementing the JVM under the GPL is legal and patent free? A group of companies could get behind an independent JVM already in progress, refine it and back it, without Oracle interference?
- wmf 16y ago
  No, you only get patent protection if you use Oracle's GPL code (OpenJDK). If you write your own (e.g. GCJ, Kaffe) there's less protection.
  - lhnn 16y ago
    So someone could fork OpenJDK indefinitely without merging and be protected? Where is all of this documented? Where is the primary source on patent/licensing dangers of (writing/forking a JVM|creating your own "version" of Java)? I don't like asking a lot of questions, but I don't know where to look.
    - jsmcgd 16y ago
      Reading the GPL should answer a lot of your questions. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
  - apgwoz 16y ago
    > No, you only get patent protection if you use Oracle's GPL code (OpenJDK). If you write your own (e.g. GCJ, Kaffe) there's less protection. Which leads to the question, how much of the original fork must you maintain in order to be safe?
bad_user 16y ago
The GPLv2 patents provision is rather weak, and it is extremely unclear if derivate works of OpenJDK are protected. In case you haven't realized it, Oracle's intent is to effectively kill open-source Java.
- joe_the_user 16y ago
  It would be extremely difficult to sue someone who for patent infringement when they were following the letter of a GPL you issued. The law still involves a modicum of common sense. Stepping up to a judge and saying "yeah, I did say he could do that but I had an extra secret thing written on my shirtsleeve saying he couldn't" just doesn't wouldn't fly well however you try to reword it... IANAL YMMV of course... The weird system of Microsoft-Novel is closer to the way a sinister patent take-over could work, though; a third party who never GPL'd any code walks in and claims everyone owes them royalties, maybe. They then play divide and conquer, with the aid of some shills in the audience.