3 ms·
>"What it doesn't protect you from is trademark issues if you claim whatever thing you have is Java." There's more to it than that. If I call it Dalvik, like
by va_coder 16y ago
>"What it doesn't protect you from is trademark issues if you claim whatever thing you have is Java."
There's more to it than that. If I call it Dalvik, like Google did, why would I get a lawsuit?
Edit: I have to say I don't think I even understand what open source means anymore. If I release an open source product, but then say you can only make modifications and sell it if you pass my tests (which I don't make freely available), it's not really open right?
- scott_s 16y agoI believe the reason is that it was not derived from anything, such as OpenJDK, that had existing licensing protection.
- rbanffy 16y ago> If I release an open source product, but then say you can only make modifications and sell it if you pass my tests (which I don't make freely available), it's not really open right? I believe your restriction on making derived works conflicts with just about every free and open-source license out there. What Sun did and Oracle does prohibit you from doing is calling something that doesn't pass the non-freely-available TCK by the name Java or implying it's Java-compatible. As for Dalvik, it's not derived from a project Oracle contributed the said patents. In this way, Dalvik is not protected agains Oracle's lawyers.
- va_coder 16y agoI think reversing a linked-list using recursion is a walk in the park compared to trying to understand patent/trademark law for software.
- stonemetal 16y agoYou would not get a trademark lawsuit. Patents have different rules.