decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Java 7 arrives for (nearly) all | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Java 7 arrives for (nearly) all
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 12:23 PM EDT
My initial tests with Java 7 last year indicated they still had not fixed a bug
in NIO that prevents sockets from listening on dual IP4/6 hosts running on
MS-Windows. I have not had a chance to repeat those tests recently, but I
strongly recommend you do your own testing before deploying a dual-stack
application.
<http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6230761>

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

LibreOffice and GPL code ...
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 03:05 PM EDT
As I've pointed out (and I was involved in WRITING some of the licence gumph on
the LO web site... :-)

Firstly, the LibreOffice licence is NOT GPL (by historical accident, the
codebase as a whole is LGPL) but MPL.

And it would only take a code audit to change the licence on the *entire* LO
codebase to the MPL/LGPL/GPL triple, which is the current licence on all the new
LO code.

So while I agree with you that ApacheOO can't take and merge LO code, you've got
the reason wrong. It's that Apache and MPL are incompatible.

The only truly (L)GPL code in LO is all copyright Apache.

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

On License-Based Acquisition Decisions
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 04:42 PM EDT

Did the java5 programmers stampede to java6? I didn't, because it took a while for Apple's brand of java to get bumped from 5 to 6, as in almost a year. Anyone who does a java application for OS X had better compile using java5 source, because a third of those users are still at java5 and many of those will never have 6 or 7, unless their Mac is replaced with a new one (and they choose to download java, which is no longer shipped on all installations of the OS.)

In the course of downloading and installing Oracle's java, I agree to the terms of their license. As I have zero, nay, less than zero interest in building a platform which has some appeal to java developers by using the same package names as Sun did, I don't consider my use of java to be an exposure because of this trial, which, any way, is already on its way to going in Google's favor.

Whenever there's code that may be useful, I ask these questions: 1) What does it promise to do that I could use?, 2) What are the annoyances in using the code, 3) How much will it cost?, 4) Does the licensing restrict me from doing any thing I might need or want to do?, 5) Can I install it on the systems I use? I weigh the answers and decide if the upside exceeds the downside. I do not have a problem if others come up with different decisions. People are free to use this action in order to decide to avoid all things Oracle (though, this might be problematic if they use mySql or BerkeleyDB). From where I sit, Oracle already had built enough of a reputation that this action is one more flower in the floral shop, were one inclined to judge the code solely by the owner. I also think that folks who spin Oracle's suit against Google into a now and future claim on all who program in java are premature at best and FUDsters for ideology at worst. This is especially ironic as there are so many languages, java was always a strategic product for Sun and now Oracle, and the software freedom folks, led by RMS, have always counseled against its use.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )