[License-discuss] Google v. Oracle

[Richard Fontana]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 1:10 PM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com> wrote:
>
> The patent claim also dropped very quickly out of the case at very early stages - I think there may have been one published opinion about the patent claims but it wasn't significant IIRC.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "check the case according to the free software permissions," but the case really has nothing to do with free software. Google did not claim to be using Java under the GPLv2 w/classpath exception, they had copied a commercial version of Java and also had not complied with the OpenJDK license. The court therefore didn't have any reason to discuss a free software license.

I believe the availability of OpenJDK under the GPL was something
Oracle talked about at trial, to emphasize that Google always had a
"free" option, and was also noted at the various stages of appeal and
in the SCOTUS oral argument, but yes it wasn't a direct issue in the
case because at the time Google was using an Apache License 2.0
implementation (including nominally Apache-licensed "declaring code").

Justice Thomas seemed to allude to the GPL option in his dissent, in
this comment (which among other things seems to conflate OpenJDK with
Java SE):

"To this end, Oracle created a work called Java 2 Platform, Standard
Edition, which included a highly organized library containing about
30,000 methods. Oracle gave developers free access to these methods to
encourage them to write programs for the Java platform. In return,
developers were required to make their programs compatible with the
Java platform on any device. Developers were encouraged to make
improvements to the platform, but they were required to release
beneficial modifications to the public. If a company wanted to
customize the platform and keep those customizations secret for
business purposes, it had to pay for a separate license."

Richard







>
> Pam
>
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> PO Box 2492
> Raleigh, NC 27602
> 919-800-8033
> pamela at chesteklegal.com
> www.chesteklegal.com
>
> On 4/29/2021 7:05 AM, Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz via License-discuss wrote:
>
> Just a candid question from someone that has not closely followed the case.
> The case moved from patent infringement (original claim in 2010) to copyright infringement: 1) are API copyrightable 2) was their use fair or not?  The second question only was answered by the Supreme Court.
> Did someone check the case according to the free software permissions granted by the library license (GPL-2.0 I presume)?
> Patrice-Emmanuel
>
> Le sam. 24 avr. 2021 à 22:16, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> a écrit :
>>
>> To: OSI License Discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> For those of you interested in the details of the Google v. Oracle case and the arguments raised by the lawyers and the Supreme Court, this is an excellent 1-hour summary:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://youtu.be/BDLTOwoSRNg
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a 1-hour CLE credit if you want it. Please enjoy. /Larry
>>
>>
>>
>> Lawrence Rosen
>>
>> 707-478-8932
>>
>> 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>>
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
>
>
> --
> Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz
> pe.schmitz at gmail.com
> tel. + 32 478 50 40 65
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org