IANAL, I don't know what Sun's position is, and I would not want to try
to represent it if I did. All that said, I have heard people claim that
any implementation of an API specification {may, probably does, or must
- depending on who you ask} infringe copyright in the API specification.
I have heard quite a wide variety of opinions on this from lawyers that
I have queried about this as a general principle. It is a rather
important issue on which I wish, for the sake of our industry, the law
were more clear.
As noted, I don't know whether such copyright is some/all of the "Sun SE
IP" that Sun is referring to, but that would seem to be one possibility,
as Sun certainly does claim a copyright to the Java SE Specification.
In fact, it would seem that the only other possibility would be one or
more patent claims of sufficient breadth to cover all possible
implementations of the Specification; one could check for the existence
of such patents, though I have not done so.
Another source that might be relevant (if not greatly enlightening) is
the license provided by Sun to the SE Specification:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/relnotes/license.html
It purports to grant a license "under any applicable copyrights or
patent rights ... in the Specification to create and/or distribute an
Independent Implementation of the Specification ..." provided the
implementation passes the TCK, etc, etc. Whether such a license is
actually necessary, though, is left as an exercise to the reader.
-- Eric
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Lawrence Rosen [mailto:lrosen@rosenlaw.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 12:51 PM
>To: dims@apache.org; legal-discuss@apache.org
>Subject: RE: Java SE IP Issues (affects Apache Harmony)
>
>Dims asked:
>> Has anyone here reviewed the following note from SUN?
>> https://jdk.dev.java.net/jse_ip_issues.html
>
>Does anyone know the specific "Sun SE IP" that Sun claims? While it may
be
>fair to demand compatibility as a condition of licensing, I'd need to
know
>exactly what Sun is licensing first and whether we really need to
license
>it.
>
>>>From what Sun wrote, I can't see why anyone would need a license from
Sun
>as
>long as they:
>
> 1. Don't copy any of Sun's code. The implementation must be
independent.
>
> 2. Don't use any of Sun's patented technology. What patents?
>
> 3. Don't apply Sun's trademarks to the goods.
>
> 4. Don't desire to pass Sun's TCK.
>
>Nobody should need a license from Sun to make truthful statements such
as
>"Apache Harmony is Apache's own implementation of Sun's Java SE created
by
>reading public documentation and by reverse engineering solely to
obtain
>compatibility." For example, "Firefox is open source software that does
>what
>Microsoft's Internet Explorer does, only better."
>
>/Larry
>
>Lawrence Rosen
>Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
>3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482
>707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243
>Author of "Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and
> Intellectual Property Law" (Prentice Hall 2004)
> [Available also at www.rosenlaw.com/oslbook.htm]
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Davanum Srinivas [mailto:davanum@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 11:48 AM
>> To: legal-discuss@apache.org
>> Subject: Java SE IP Issues (affects Apache Harmony)
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Has anyone here reviewed the following note from SUN?
>> https://jdk.dev.java.net/jse_ip_issues.html
>>
>> Thanks,
>> dims
>>
>> --
>> Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/ - Oxygenating The Web
>> Service Platform
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and
>> educational only, are not privileged and do not constitute
>> legal advice.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
>only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
|