3 ms·
The releases are under Apache License 2, which has both a patent grant and a patent retaliation clause.
by McGlockenshire 13y ago
The releases are under Apache License 2, which has both a patent grant and a patent retaliation clause.
- shmerl 13y agoThat's good. But that's just the compiler. What about APIs (i.e. .NET)? I don't think Oracle claimed ownership over Java compilers in the example above. It was primarily about Java APIs.
- Mikeb85 13y agoThe precedent has already been set that API's aren't patentable... So I think we're good.
- shmerl 13y agoFrom that perspective yes. But MS clearly showed they didn't like that. It was about the attitude in general. If MS want to really open things up, they should formally have an open license for APIs that would protect them from MS patent and copyright threats.
- gillianseed 13y agoI really hope that the ruling by judge Alsup stands, but Microsoft and Oracle is currently trying to overturn that ruling and make API's copyrightable.
- emn13 13y agoOne version of the core libraries (micro framework) are OSS too, along with a bunch of other stuff, but by no means everything or even everything in the base class library. See slide: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkT9oBcCQAAHIAV.jpg:large https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkT9oBcCQAAHIAV.jpg:large