JDK7 with lambda's downloadable

[Mark Wielaard]

On Tue, 2010-09-14 at 15:09 -0700, Neal Gafter wrote:
> 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.

Then you are not reading carefully IMHO. Go consult your counsel if you
are unsure.

> > 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.

You got the license. But lawyers never give 100% guarantees you won't
get sued anyway. People/Companies are unfortunately crazy. You can still
end up in court even if you are 100% in the right. Then you still need a
defense.

> > 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.

The preamble defines how to interpret the terms in the license.

> 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).
> [...]
> 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.

It does grant such right. I don't see how you can interpret the GPL for
not granting you rights to actually use the code. And you need patent
rights not just for running, but also for making, distributing, etc. So
obviously you already got those through the license.

Cheers,

Mark