apastsya
commented
12 years ago Comment created by starksm64:
Section 6.C makes a similar statement regarding section 6.
C. Effect on Existing Agreements. No provision of this Section 6 shall be understood to require Oracle to modify license agreements for Java technology that Oracle has in place, or to modify or replace in future license agreements for Java technology provisions comparable to those currently in place, with respect to Oracle’s granting of license for (or covenants not to assert) its patent claims where there is no technically feasible alternative that would avoid the infringement of such claims (with respect to Your exercise of the rights described in Section 6.A.[a]-[c]).
Jira issue originally created by user starksm64:
In section 5.F.IV of the JSPA from
Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither this subparagraph IV nor Section 5.F.II (concerning reciprocal patent licensing, shall be understood to require Oracle to modify license agreements for Java technology that Oracle has in place, or to modify or replace in future license agreements for Java technology provisions comparable to those currently in place, where the RI and/or TCK would be covered by such license agreements. This proviso shall not be understood to exempt Oracle, when it is the Spec Lead, from the obligation to license the TCK separate from the corresponding RI code when the Spec is developed under any JSR submitted hereafter.
I would argue this is unnecessarily broad and should be dropped in the spirit of transparency as one cannot understand that ramifications of the statement by reading the available JCP documents.