The article is based on the assumption that if the Apache Harmony project passed the TCK and attained patient protection, then the Android project would automatically gain protection. An assumption which is clearly untrue. The majority of points describe the problems Apache has had obtaining a license for their Harmony project, and are not relevant to this case. To protect Android it would need to be Android that passes the test, not Harmony. Android will not pass the TCK.
> * Sun open-sourced Java Standard Edition under the GPL in 2006 and > 2007, but didn't include a patent or copyright license with the code. This second point is blatantly incorrect as the GPL v2 IS a copyright license and includes an implicit patent grant. Moreover, it implies that any project or fork based on the OpenJDK is not protected from such litigation, when it would be. A more accurate description might read: "Sun open-sourced the Java Standard Edition (OpenJDK) under the GPL in 2006 and 2007 providing copyright and patent protection to those who make use of it. However, because Android is not based on the OpenJDK it is not awarded this protection." Overall, the article is spreading misinformation - muddying the waters a little more. -- Orien -- 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.
