> So you can't cliam it does what it has to to be useful

You can always claim it's based on OpenJDK.

> and you run the risk of unknown lawsuits on hidden grounds from a large and litigious company who you're trying to outmaneuver to avoid giving them money

I won't be the one to indulge such a paranoid delusion. Oracle won't sue you for using OpenJDK because they know it would be a lost cause.

> Oracle won't sue you for using OpenJDK because they know it would be a lost cause.

Even if it's based on OpenJDK, you still wouldn't get any patent protection. I wouldn't put my trust in Oracle to not sue me over anything...

You would. GPLv2 provides an implicit patent grant. Oracle wouldn't be able to touch you.

See http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1978507

The weakness of the GPL's patent protection was one of the reasons for the move to v3. I think that you're vastly overestimating the 'implicit' protection that the GPL provides, which to my knowledge has never been tested in court. Even the FSF states this in their FAQ on v3:

In many countries, distributing software under GPLv2 provides recipients with an implicit patent license to exercise their rights under the GPL.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#v2OrLaterPatentLice...

Many countries, but not all... and it's not clear in the case of v2.

> The weakness of the GPL's patent protection was one of the reasons for the move to v3

I agree that v3 is more clear about patents than v2, but it's unfair to call a protection that was never used (possibly because it has been a successful deterrent) "weak". It can only be weak if it doesn't protect. So far, it has been effective.

I think the wording in v2 is clear enough. One cannot impose any additional restriction and cannot force fees on users and re-distributors. That protects not only against patents but from anything that looks like one.