5 ms·

They've given a license to use and extend the copy-written software, including its method signatures.

• pwdisswordfish0 6y ago
  It's copyright, not copywrite https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/copywrite https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/copywrite
• mumblemumble 6y ago
  Oracle has done that, too. They release the full JDK under the GPL. The law around these sorts of things can get pretty hair-splitty. My guess is that the situation here is that Amazon client libraries and OpenJDK are distributed with a license to create derivative works that are based on their respective products, but that these licenses do not necessarily grant a license to create a new thing that works the same out of whole cloth. Should Oracle win the case, that would seem to imply that the Court believes they do not. Alternatively, the fact that open source licenses do not appear to have even been brought up in the course of these hearings would perhaps imply that the existence of open source libraries that implement these APIs is legally irrelevant.
  • jeremyjh 6y ago
    OpenJDK did not exist when Android was developed and initially released. Google did move to using it 2016 and may not have liability after that date.
    • syshum 6y ago
      Andriod was First released in Sept 2008, OpenJDK was first released May 2007...
      • mumblemumble 6y ago
        Perhaps more legally relevant, Android's first public beta dropped in late 2007. But still, technically after OpenJDK's release.