Re: jdk1.2

[Mark Wielaard <mark@klomp.org>]

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 11, 1999 at 08:05:00AM -0400, Gene McCulley wrote:
>     Mark> Yes, the JDK License is scary. Especially the License that
>     Mark> comes with JDK 1.2.  Clause 2 of that license says:
> 
>     >> Software is confidential and copyrighted. Title to Software and
>     >> all associated intellectual property rights is retained by Sun
>     >> and/or its licensors.  Except as specifically authorized in any
>     >> Supplemental License Terms, you may not make copies of
>     >> Software, other than a single copy of Software for archival
>     >> purposes.
> 
>     Mark> That means that unless Debian, its mirrors and other people
>     Mark> distributing Debian (non-free) CDs get an exception it
>     Mark> cannot be distributed via the ftp archive or on CD.
> 
> So we can't redistribute the blackdown version of jdk1.2, but
> blackdown can?  Do they have a special dispensation?
I don't know. You have to ask them.
 
> But we can redistribute the jre1.2, right?  For my current needs, that
> would work fine as I can use the jre and one of the free javac
> implementations until we have a free jre.
I don't think we can or want to distribute the JRE with Debian.
The supplemental license terms of the JRE has a few very nasty clauses:

 > 1. License to Distribute. You are granted a royalty-free right to
 > reproduce and distribute the Software provided that you: (i)distribute
 > the Software complete and unmodified, only as part of, and for the
 > sole purpose of running, your Java applet or application ("Program")
 > into which the Software is incorporated;
We might get away with this one since we distribute it together with
Java applications bundled with Debian. But we also do want to allow people
to download only the jre package.

 > (ii) do not distribute additional software intended to replace any
 > component(s) of the Software;
But we cannot agree to this one. We want to distribute Kaffe, Japhar,
Classpath, Gcj, Kopi, Fastjar, etc  which are intended to replace the JRE
with a Free version. Even if we don't consider non-free part of Debian
(the JRE would not go into main :) I think we should not encourage software
that tries to prevent Free replacements.

 > [...] (v) may not create, or authorize your licensees to create additional
 > classes, interfaces, or subpackages that are contained in the "java" or
 > "sun" packages or similar as specified by Sun in any class file naming
 > convention;
My example why this is a bad clause was not so good since someone pointed
out that you do not want to create something that is non standard. I do
agree that we want a standard implementation of the core classes, but I
also think that you should have the freedom to create non-standard classes.
(Or fix bugs or stupid mistakes in the standard classes.)

 > [...] and(vii) agree to indemnify, hold harmless, and defend Sun and its
 > licensors from and against any claims or lawsuits, including attorneys'
 > fees, that arise or result from the use or distribution of the Program.
And I don't think that Debian (or SPI) can or wants to do that.

So I am afraid that we also cannot distribute the Sun or Blackdown JRE.
This isn't that bad since it is non-free software, but it is annoying.
As I said before please help one of the (many) Free Java projects out there
if you want to see a Free JVM, Standard Classes, Compiler, etc. in Debian.
They are far from complete but they do work for most purposes.

Cheers,

Mark