JDK7 with lambda's downloadable

[Neal Gafter]

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 that we grant Oracle our patent rights!
>
> They have obviously granted you those patent rights through their
> distribution under the GPL.


That appears to be neither obvious nor true given the actual terms of the
GPLv2.