www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [Draft] New ASF/JCP Policies
Date Fri, 06 Jul 2007 20:58:17 GMT

On Jul 3, 2007, at 3:08 PM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:

> On Jun 29, 2007, at 1:25 PM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>> If someone can modify our code, recompile and use a non-TCK'ed build
>> of Harmony, are /they/ in violation of the same patents that  
>> applied to
>> our binary TCK'ed build?  If so, that code does not meet our  
>> definition
>> of open source, and the entire discussion is moot.  (I'm not talking
>> about the finer points of extending the source code to trigger those
>> patent clauses which *weren't* granted by an official implementation;
>> simply changing the code to accomplish the same thing more  
>> efficiently,
>> or with fewer bugs.)
>
> This is my biggest concern.  FWIU, when you work with the source  
> directly (modify it or compile it), you loose the rights to use all  
> of the patents that were granted to the certified binary.   
> Additionally, since the certification kit and certification mark  
> are not available under an open license, you have to go to the  
> owner with wallet open.

Don't you take that risk w/ any derivative work of software?

>
> I'm not sure why the FSF guys like the GPLed JavaVM since you have  
> restricted rights to modify the source.

I think that situation is even worse.  They don't have any "necessary  
IP" from anyone but Sun.  Sun forgets they weren't the only IP  
contributor on the EG.

(And don't ask about the Kodak patents...)

geir



Mime
View raw message