Field of use

[Volker Simonis]

In my opinion http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_and_patents seems to be a
strange site and I wouldn't rely too much on it:

- it claims that "GPLv2 includes two implicit patent licenses" but as
far as I know, this is still a controversial topic (see for example:
http://www.fenwick.com/docstore/Publications/IP/potential_defenses.pdf)
and one of the reasons why GPLv3 was created. (By the way,  this topic
has already been extensively discussed on this list:
http://old.nabble.com/Licensing-questions-to27254043.html#a27258107)

- it claims there is a patent grant trough the "Java Language
Specification" but if you read that carefully you will notice that it
"only applies for implementations of Java that fully comply with the
Java Language Specification" which can be only proves by passing the
latest TCP tests from Oracle. But these tests are not free AND they
contain 'a field of use'  clause!

So I would say if you don't want to certify it and call it Java you
are quite safe until you made your first billion dollars. Then of
course with every additional billion there's an increasing risc of
getting sued for patent infringements :)

Regards,
Volker

PS: I'm not a lawyer..

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-11-19 at 13:39 +0000, Jonathan Tripathy wrote:
>> I still don't see any "Field of Use" restrictions though.
>
> That is because there aren't any such restrictions.
>
>> Then again, I don't see any patent license grants at all..
>
> They are all licensed through the GPL for everyone's free use.
> http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Java_and_patents
>
> "OpenJDK is has been distributed by Oracle under GPLv2. GPLv2 includes
> two implicit patent licences, so users of OpenJDK should be safe, and
> modified versions of OpenJDK should also be safe (even if they're
> heavily modified).
>
> The protections in the GPL are unconditional. The software doesn't have
> to comply with any specifications in order to benefit from these
> protections."
>
>