-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 8/16/10 17:49 , Reinier Zwitserloot wrote: > A second one involves mixed mode VMs which is probably the most > meaty patent in the set, but its just not something android > actually does. A commenter said instead Android 2.2 does mixed mode:
JIT has been added in the Android 2.2 Froyo, and do mix interpreted code with native code. JIT is only turned on by default if 512MB memory os available, otherwise 2.2 Froyo also uses a pure interpreter solution. I find it's frustrating how hard is for us to understand all of these details. Also, I found an interesting comment about my comment on GPL providing patent protection: that is, the commenter said that GPLv2 doesn't provide patent protection. I believed that the GPLv3 improvements for what concerns patents is only the "patent retaliation clauses" (the thing that made GPLv2 incompatible with ASF v2.0) and some very specific stuff, but that patent protection was already in GPLv2. I'm copying my counter-comments below: @Paul Stadig "but perhaps this would require every device manufacturer to provide the source for their "distribution" including their modifications and customizations." Hmmmm... I've got some doubts about that. Copying from http://source.android.com/source/licenses.html Android Open Source Project license The preferred license for the Android Open Source Project is the Apache Software License, 2.0 ("Apache 2.0"), and the majority of the Android software is licensed with Apache 2.0. While the project will strive to adhere to the preferred license, there may be exceptions which will be handled on a case-by-case basis. For example, the Linux kernel patches are under the GPLv2 license with system exceptions, which can be found on kernel.org. If the manufacturer customization is made in the kernel, they have to make them public because the kernel is GPLv2 (no big surprise, it's a Linux fork). I expect that the required customization made to the runtime library, which is the part that must be portable, are so small that redistributing the sources shouldn't be a problem. After all, we're saying that Android is "open", right? @rps "The OpenJDK is released under the GPLv2, which does not provide explicit patent protection. This is a feature of v3." - From the FSF site: http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html "GPLv3 also provides for explicit patent protection of the users from the program's contributors and redistributors. With GPLv2, users rely on an implicit patent license to make sure that the company which provided them a copy won't sue them, or the people they redistribute copies to, for patent infringement." More at that site. So, GPLv2 already provides patent protection. It has been improved in GPLv3. I'd like to understand whether the GPLv2 isn't really enough and why. BTW, at this point it should be pointed out that the Android kernel itself is GPLv2, not v3. I think it's because Linus Torvalds criticized GPLv3 and wanted to stay with GPLv2. I have some doubts, unless somebody explains me the details, that the Linux guys are so naive to stay with a license that exposes people to patent infringements. In any case, if GPLv2 is so weak, we should be worried about Linux and thus the Android core as well. Right? - -- Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/people fabrizio.giud...@tidalwave.it -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.14 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkxpmXcACgkQeDweFqgUGxdt1ACdFuOnTWcKJvYOa1c1/1qML9qN GNkAn2qQOdlbd4hqlY5erv5KGSUBTb+i =6rI4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to javapo...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
