5 ms·

> If Oracle wins, you couldn't reimplement a compatible version of anything that's not open source It's worse than that. OpenJDK, including the java standard l

> If Oracle wins, you couldn't reimplement a compatible version of anything that's not open source It's worse than that. OpenJDK, including the java standard library, is GPL. It's open source. Oracle is claiming that even though source code defining the API is open source, they retain copyright to the API itself.. regardless of the open source implementation of the API by themselves. If this case goes through, you won't be able to mimic an open source project's API unless you also verify they provide the API under a similarly permissive license.

jeremyjh 6y ago
> Oracle is claiming that even though source code defining the API is open source, they retain copyright to the API itself.. Are you sure they are claiming that? A weaker claim could be that Google's usage does not conform to the GPL. Indeed if you were correct and the ruling is in Oracle's favor then the GPL is broken as designed, I haven't heard anyone express that concern in connection with this case.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > A weaker claim could be that Google's usage does not conform to the GPL. At the time at issue, Java wasn't under the GPL. That Google did not have a (public offer or private) license to Java is not in dispute.
- initplus 6y ago
  I very much doubt that anyone in big tech wants to open the can of worms that is GPL enforcement.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> OpenJDK, including the java standard library, is GPL. It's open source. The code at issue is pre-OpenJDK, and wasn't open source when used (though much of it may now also be available in OpenJDK, not that Google uses it under the GPL, or claims to, anyhow.)
- cyphar 6y ago
  Sun released Java under the GPL in 2006 and most of JDK in mid-2007, but the first release of Android was in 2008. Or is the issue that they were developing it behind closed doors while it was still proprietary, even though they never distributed it to anyone?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    The first public release of Android was a beta in 2007 (also, layer in 2007, the first SDK preview was released), and it was released to OHA members before that. But the GPL is irrelevant, Google has never distributed under the GPL terms. That whatever it was doing was not under a Sun/Oracle license is not in dispute.
    - cyphar 6y ago
      Yeah I agree the GPL is not relevant to the case at hand, though it does raise the question whether (assuming Oracle wins) the logical conclusion is that the Java APIs are under the GPL/Proprietary dual-license Oracle offers today or that the copyright license itself doesn't apply to the API and a separate license is needed -- in which case I guess it's high time for GPLv4.
      - pjmlp 6y ago
        Except anti-GPL folks have made GPL almost irrelevant outside Java, Linux kernel, GCC and a couple of GNU tools.
        nix23 6y ago
        That's because the GPL is not as Hippie as you might think. Your code is just protected if it gets re-distributed, that's why google never ever has to opensource their "Server OS/Kernel". Also they changed GCC to GPLv3 which is just a super stupid decision for a Compiler.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jeremyjh 6y ago

> Oracle is claiming that even though source code defining the API is open source, they retain copyright to the API itself.. Are you sure they are claiming that? A weaker claim could be that Google's usage does not conform to the GPL. Indeed if you were correct and the ruling is in Oracle's favor then the GPL is broken as designed, I haven't heard anyone express that concern in connection with this case.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> A weaker claim could be that Google's usage does not conform to the GPL. At the time at issue, Java wasn't under the GPL. That Google did not have a (public offer or private) license to Java is not in dispute.
initplus 6y ago
I very much doubt that anyone in big tech wants to open the can of worms that is GPL enforcement.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> OpenJDK, including the java standard library, is GPL. It's open source. The code at issue is pre-OpenJDK, and wasn't open source when used (though much of it may now also be available in OpenJDK, not that Google uses it under the GPL, or claims to, anyhow.)

cyphar 6y ago
Sun released Java under the GPL in 2006 and most of JDK in mid-2007, but the first release of Android was in 2008. Or is the issue that they were developing it behind closed doors while it was still proprietary, even though they never distributed it to anyone?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  The first public release of Android was a beta in 2007 (also, layer in 2007, the first SDK preview was released), and it was released to OHA members before that. But the GPL is irrelevant, Google has never distributed under the GPL terms. That whatever it was doing was not under a Sun/Oracle license is not in dispute.
  - cyphar 6y ago
    Yeah I agree the GPL is not relevant to the case at hand, though it does raise the question whether (assuming Oracle wins) the logical conclusion is that the Java APIs are under the GPL/Proprietary dual-license Oracle offers today or that the copyright license itself doesn't apply to the API and a separate license is needed -- in which case I guess it's high time for GPLv4.
    - pjmlp 6y ago
      Except anti-GPL folks have made GPL almost irrelevant outside Java, Linux kernel, GCC and a couple of GNU tools.
      - nix23 6y ago
        That's because the GPL is not as Hippie as you might think. Your code is just protected if it gets re-distributed, that's why google never ever has to opensource their "Server OS/Kernel". Also they changed GCC to GPLv3 which is just a super stupid decision for a Compiler.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]