4 ms·

>And things like something being non-commercial, such as a lot of open source software, is a major factor in determining whether or not usage is fair. Why it s

>And things like something being non-commercial, such as a lot of open source software, is a major factor in determining whether or not usage is fair. Why it should? It would mean that implementing commercial Java runtime without Oracle license is not possible?

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Whether usage is commercial or not is a big part of the first factor in the fair use test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#1._Purpose_and_character_of_the_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#1._Purpose_and_charac... You could arguably implement Java without a license from Oracle provided you were using the GPL, as OpenJDK is released under the JDK, and presumably includes the entire Java API. The problem for Google, of course, is OEMs would've balked at being forced to open source all of their proprietary modifications to Android. Wikipedia says the OpenJDK was released in 2007, so Google could've legally used the Java API under GPL terms, but chose not to, and also chose not to pay for Java licensing.
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  OpenJDK is not released under GPL, but a much more permissive license.
  - pabs3 6y ago
    The OpenJDK license is GPLv2, with the ClassPath Exception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenJDK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenJDK
- garaetjjte 6y ago
  >would've balked at being forced to open source all of their proprietary modifications to Android OpenJDK have linking exception, so it doesn't apply. In fact Android uses OpenJDK now. It also makes Oracle case looks phoney, suing Google for Java usage while having released freely available OpenJDK. But that's not the point, I think implementing API/ABI/protocols/whatever should be allowed whether or not vendor wants it. There are many reimplementations of competitors APIs, and ruling in favor of Oracle would basically break that. Under that interpretation Wine would be in danger too, as significant part of Wine development is commercial (by CodeWeavers making their CrossOver product).
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > You could arguably implement Java without a license from Oracle provided you were using the GPL So, as long as you are using it under the license Oracle offers it to you under, you could use it without a license from Oracle? I think that is inherently self-contradictory.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> > And things like something being non-commercial, such as a lot of open source software, is a major factor in determining whether or not usage is fair. > Why it should? Because its explicitly a factor, in the statute, for fair use analysis. > It would mean that implementing commercial Java runtime without Oracle license is not possible? Maybe, maybe not. If Google loses on both copyrightability and fair use, the entire case law on API fair use will be one negative instance. We might also get a more specific test articulated in the ruling, but we have no idea what that test would be now, so its hard to speculate (well, easy to speculate, but hard to judge which speculation is more accurate) what the impact would be on any other use.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

Whether usage is commercial or not is a big part of the first factor in the fair use test: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#1._Purpose_and_character_of_the_use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#1._Purpose_and_charac... You could arguably implement Java without a license from Oracle provided you were using the GPL, as OpenJDK is released under the JDK, and presumably includes the entire Java API. The problem for Google, of course, is OEMs would've balked at being forced to open source all of their proprietary modifications to Android. Wikipedia says the OpenJDK was released in 2007, so Google could've legally used the Java API under GPL terms, but chose not to, and also chose not to pay for Java licensing.

AstralStorm 6y ago
OpenJDK is not released under GPL, but a much more permissive license.
- pabs3 6y ago
  The OpenJDK license is GPLv2, with the ClassPath Exception: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenJDK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenJDK
garaetjjte 6y ago
>would've balked at being forced to open source all of their proprietary modifications to Android OpenJDK have linking exception, so it doesn't apply. In fact Android uses OpenJDK now. It also makes Oracle case looks phoney, suing Google for Java usage while having released freely available OpenJDK. But that's not the point, I think implementing API/ABI/protocols/whatever should be allowed whether or not vendor wants it. There are many reimplementations of competitors APIs, and ruling in favor of Oracle would basically break that. Under that interpretation Wine would be in danger too, as significant part of Wine development is commercial (by CodeWeavers making their CrossOver product).
dragonwriter 6y ago
> You could arguably implement Java without a license from Oracle provided you were using the GPL So, as long as you are using it under the license Oracle offers it to you under, you could use it without a license from Oracle? I think that is inherently self-contradictory.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> > And things like something being non-commercial, such as a lot of open source software, is a major factor in determining whether or not usage is fair. > Why it should? Because its explicitly a factor, in the statute, for fair use analysis. > It would mean that implementing commercial Java runtime without Oracle license is not possible? Maybe, maybe not. If Google loses on both copyrightability and fair use, the entire case law on API fair use will be one negative instance. We might also get a more specific test articulated in the ruling, but we have no idea what that test would be now, so its hard to speculate (well, easy to speculate, but hard to judge which speculation is more accurate) what the impact would be on any other use.