Java Trap, 2010 Edition

Re:Java Trap, 2010 Edition by sanxiyn on Tuesday October 12, 2010 @08:23AM (#1783073)

Ah, so anyone using GCJ in a product could be sued the same way Google was sued. I didn't know that.

The right conclusion to make seems to be that software patents are bad.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java Trap, 2010 Edition by pilif on Tuesday October 12, 2010 @08:44AM (#1783118)

    > Ah, so anyone using GCJ in a product could 
    > be sued the same way Google was sued. I 
    > didn't know that.

this is exactly the point. And this might also be (one of) the reason(s) why Google PR is calling the suit against them a suit against Open Source in itself.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java Trap, 2010 Edition by bad_user on Tuesday October 12, 2010 @08:36AM (#1783101)

The other conclusion would be that Sun, and now Oracle, are schizophrenic hypocrites: let's not blame it solely on software patents.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java Trap, 2010 Edition by rbanffy on Tuesday October 12, 2010 @09:08AM (#1783186)

I believe the GCJ is vulnerable because, like Dalvik, it's not derived from the OpenJDK.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java Trap, 2010 Edition by hga on Tuesday October 12, 2010 @10:22AM (#1783460)

Well, not being VM based it should be free of some or all of the patents used by Oracle in that part of its lawsuit against Dalvik, but that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be otherwise vulnerable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Java Trap, 2010 Edition by rbanffy on Tuesday October 12, 2010 @11:52AM (#1783803)

And don't forget OpenJDK derivatives are only patent-proof for patents owned by Sun at the time of its licensing.

[ Parent | on HN ]