JDK7 with lambda's downloadable

[Nathan Bryant]

Well, stay with me for just a moment before you tune me out: Google wants to work with their distributors. They've stated they don't want to restrict what their distributors do with the kernel.

So they're basically an enabler.

This does not excuse Oracle's behavior; it just turns it into another case of two somewhat shady corporations fighting amongst themselves, rather than one shady corporation and a saintly innocent victim. Make out of that what you will.

-----Original Message-----
From: neal.gafter at gmail.com [mailto:neal.gafter at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Neal Gafter
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 11:50 AM
To: Nathan Bryant
Cc: Neal Gafter; lambda-dev at openjdk.java.net
Subject: JDK7 with lambda's downloadable

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