> On 02/25/2013 07:08 PM, Dejay [via jogamp] wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
> <snip impl. questions/>
>
>>
>> PS, about licensing, it should be fine for applications:
>> http://fxexperience.com/2013/02/february-open-source-update/#more-2496
>>
>>     Richard Bair wrote
>>     My understanding (and I’m not a lawyer)
>
> And this is the whole problem we have,
> there is no clear statement about Oracle's source and binary license
> towards the patent grant which they currently only grant for OpenJDK
> on TCK approved builds!
>
> Richard Blair's statement is a NULL statement ending right after his
> disclaimer,since nobody really cares what he 'understands' personally.
>
> Elaboration of this is available here:
>   https://jogamp.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=682
>
> As long Oracle is not capable of publishing a legally binding statement
> we all are able to understand properly, there is a lot of FUD going around.
>
> The issue Oracle vs Google might be able to solve it,
> however decisions in such cases lie very often in the very detail
> and may not give small companies 'peace of mind'.
>
> IMHO it would be very helpful if Oracle finally could turn around
> and give a patent grant to all products based on OpenJDK
> including mobile/embedded.