JDK7 with lambda's downloadable

[Neal Gafter]

I don't get it.  Because HTC is not a good OSS citizen and violates
Google's license under which they get rights to the kernel, it is OK
for Oracle to sue Google?  Is there a reasoning step in there that I'm
missing?

On Tuesday, October 12, 2010, Nathan Bryant <nathan.bryant at linkshare.com> wrote:
> In light of this, I am almost inclined to give Oracle a free pass on
> their lawsuit:
>
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/sjs/htc-willfully-violates-gpl-t-m
> obiles-new-g2-android-phone
>
> It's not like most of the Android distributors are good open source
> citizens; they're not. Those phones all require jailbreaking.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lambda-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net
> [mailto:lambda-dev-bounces at openjdk.java.net] On Behalf Of Neal Gafter
> Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:09 PM
> To: Mark Wielaard
> Cc: lambda-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: Re: JDK7 with lambda's downloadable
>
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 8:07 AM, Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp.org> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 17:53 -0700, Neal Gafter wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes
>> > <ahughes at redhat.com>wrote:
>> > > On 10 September 2010 06:39, Neal Gafter <neal at gafter.com> wrote:
>> > > > Does Oracle offer a patent grant so that we can *use* the lambda
>> > > prototype,
>> > > > whether from our own builds or prebuilt by Oracle?
>>
>> They explicitly do through their distribution of the code under GPLv2.
>>
>
> I don't see that in GPLv2.
>
>
>> This came up before and then people pointed out that it isn't just the
>> FSF, but that it is also the most likely interpretation when one has
> to
>> actually go to court: "from available case law, it is reasonable to
>> conclude that the implied license defense is available and tenable for
> a
>> defendant in a patent suit involving software released under the
>> GPL" [3].
>>
>
> I don't want a tenable defense.  I want a license to use.
>
>
>>  > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html (7 & 8)
>> > > http://en.swpat.org/wiki/GPLv2_and_patents
>> > >
>> > I'm afraid sections 7 and 8 are not the least bit helpful.  An
> allegation
>> of
>> > patent infringement for using GPL2'ed code does not contradict any
> of the
>> > conditions of the GPLv2 license.
>>
>> I assume off-by-one and you mean sections 6 and 7. Not providing a
>> patent license would definitely contradict GPLv2. The GPL is pretty
>> explicit that any license granted includes a very broad patent grant:
>> "we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's
>> free use".
>
>
> That is the preamble of the license, not the terms of the license.  As
> it
> turns out, the terms do not make it clear.
>
> So one has to read "license" in sections 6 and 7 to include
>> such a broad patent license (from Oracle and from others that have
>> granted such rights to Oracle itself [for example in the JCP] that are
>> necessary and are now passed through according to clause 6 and 7).
>>
>
> I'd rather not read terms into the license where those terms are absent
> from
> the words of the license.
>
>
>>  > The GPLv2 license grants freedoms to copy, distribute, and modify
> the
>> > sources.  But GPLv2 doesn't grant the recipient the right to use
>> (execute)
>> > the code.  To use the code, you'd need the right to every patent
> that may
>> be
>> > infringed by executing the code.
>>
>> Again the GPL is very explicit about also covering use, it explicitly
>> says all usage rights associated are granted without restrictions:
> "The
>> act of running the Program is not restricted".
>>
>
> You've taken those words out of context.  Adding back the context:
>
> Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> covered
> by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the
> Program
> is not restricted...
>
> In other words, the license does not restrict any rights you may have to
> run
> the program.  But neither does it grant such rights.  Patents that the
> user
> does not have rights to may restrict running the program.
>
>
>>  > Oracle has not granted me, or other non-Oracle openjdk
> contributors, the
>> patent
>> > rights that we need to use the code.  However, the openjdk
> contributor
>> > agreement requires tha