OpenJDK GB Minutes: 2007/8/23

[David Herron]

Andy Tripp wrote:
> That seems to me like saying that both of these are "derived" from a 
> Honda:
> a) A Honda engine in a non-Honda car
> b) A non-Honda engine in a Honda car
>   

> I think neither a Honda engine in a non-Honda car
> nor a Honda car with some other engine is "substantially derived" from 
> an original Honda.
> The engine is just too big of a part of the car, and a VM is too big a 
> part of a JDK.
> And I think there's just no "deriving" going on here anyway. 
> "Deriving" would be to modify something
> from the original, not mix-and-match parts. 

Hi Andy,

This is an interesting analogy.

I happen to know a lot of people who do EV conversions -- they are 
recognizing the car companies aren't cooperating with our desire to have 
electric vehicles, and some take the step to convert their car on their 
own to electric drive.  And that is essentially what you've described; 
you start with a car, rip out the gas burning junk, and install clean 
wonderful electric drive systems.  And if you go to 
http://www.evalbum.com you can see descriptions for hundreds of vehicles 
people have done this with.  Almost always they continue calling their 
car a Honda or a Suburu or a Ford etc..

On the other hand, Solectria used to do similar conversions 
commercially.  They took regular cars and as a commercial operation 
converted them to electric drive.  They relabeled the cars with their 
own branding.. but there are trademark issues involved.. The Solectria 
Force was really a Chevy made vehicle, but Chevrolet probably would be 
unwilling to grant them rights to use those brand names.  This is 
related to why the Iced Tea project has the name its using.

A car, after an EV conversion, the part the passengers sit in is the 
same.. most of the vehicle operation remains the same as how GM or Ford 
or whoever designed it.  It's using the same steering, brakes, doors, 
seats, mirrors, etc, just replacing the motor.


Getting back to your point...

I think that starting with OpenJDK code and modifying it by removing 
parts and adding in other parts could be taken as derivation.  That's 
certainly our position, that swapping out a part like the VM is a 
derivation.


I think it's a matter of ... ah ... percentages?  Perhaps?  Maybe it 
could be described as a metric of 80% of the result is OpenJDK code then 
it's substantiallly derived?  80% is a number I pulled out of the air, 
but I think it demonstrates what I'm getting at.

- David Herron