3 ms·
>they're basically arguing that GPL users of the JDK source have a free license to do things that people who didn't accept any license to any code ... don't. W
by eurleif 15y ago
>they're basically arguing that GPL users of the JDK source have a free license to do things that people who didn't accept any license to any code ... don't.
Well, that's what a license gives you: the right to use something in ways people without the license can't.
Dalvik isn't distributed under the GPL, so I don't think any rights derived from the GPL distribution of Java can be used.
- ajross 15y agoBut what if it were? What if they re-release Dalvik under the GPL and admit to Oracle, the court and the world that Dalvik is clearly a derivative of the GPL sources from Sun. And then the case gets thrown out, because of the "extra limitations" clause in the license. See why this is so weird? Oracle is arguing something that if taken to its logical conclusion would invalidate the case. So they can't argue it too far: Dalvik's success (in the market sense) has to be derived from Oracle's IP, but not so much to as to be a derived work (in the copyright sense) of the Java code. That's an awfully fine line.