There's something that often goes overlooked by promoters of open source licenses: The copyright holder is defining the licensing terms for others, not for themselves.
While it's true that it is culturally a faux pas to appear as though you are violating the "spirit" of your own license I think everyone needs a reminder that copyright holders are, by definition, not restricted in what they can do with their own stuff. Everyone else is a licensee bound to the terms of the license.
I realize that's not the only problem with Oracle's behavior. But I still think this point is important to acknowledge.
I'm not a lawyer, so if anyone can prove otherwise I'd love to hear the argument.
(Are there any licenses that do place limitations on the copyright holders themselves? Do we even need a mechanism for that?)
This isn't really about copyright licensing per se. Sun promised (in the JSPA and other places) that they would certify independent JVMs and then weaseled out at the last minute.
A license is an agreement between licensor and licensee. Both parties can bound to all sorts of conditions. Certainly the licensee can be granted irrevocable rights, as they would be with any sort of open source license.
While it's true that it is culturally a faux pas to appear as though you are violating the "spirit" of your own license I think everyone needs a reminder that copyright holders are, by definition, not restricted in what they can do with their own stuff. Everyone else is a licensee bound to the terms of the license.
I realize that's not the only problem with Oracle's behavior. But I still think this point is important to acknowledge.
I'm not a lawyer, so if anyone can prove otherwise I'd love to hear the argument.
(Are there any licenses that do place limitations on the copyright holders themselves? Do we even need a mechanism for that?)