Re: RFP: jrockit -- A virtual machine for Java
Johan Walles wrote:
I've attached the re-distribution license agreement to the RFP at
"http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=273693";. It's in MS
Word format, but it opens fine in OpenOffice.
Argh. It's a software license. There is no need to make MS Word files
out of it, afaict. Sigh.
I couldn't spot any show-stoppers in it, but then again, I might be
biased :-).
No problem, that's what you got debian-java for (and debian-legal for
the real test) :)
"2 (iii) Distributor may modify the Software in accordance with the
Documentation solely to allow for interoperability with Distributor’s
internal MIS systems."
seems to prohibit distribution of packages. In practice, packaging 3rd
part software not written for Debian usually means making a tweak or two
to the software to get it to fit into the distribution. The word
'internal' seems to indicate that such modifications may not be
distributed to others. On a side note, what is MIS?
"2 Any such modifications made in (iii) above shall not be derivative
works, and Distributor shall not create or attempt to create any
derivative works from the Software."
Uh, tricky. Does a package consitute a derivative work? :)
"Distributor may not disclose the results of any performance benchmarks
to any third party without BEA’s prior written consent."
This would speak against using it in buildds to build java packages. The
buildd results and timings are public.
"2.1 Distribution License. BEA grants Distributor a non-exclusive,
non-transferable license to (i) Reproduce and bundle or otherwise
include the Software together with the Value Added Solution, and (ii)
sublicense and distribute the Software, either directly or indirectly
through multiple tiers of distributors, for use by End Users who agree
to be bound by an End User Agreement.
2.2 Restriction. Each Value Added Solution must significantly enhance
the features and/or functionality of the Software. "
That requires users to agree to an 'End User Agreement' that's not part
of the license document. That's got a few weird clauses of its own,like
' If the version of JRockit you are licensing under this Agreement is a
“ pre-final,” “beta,” “technology preview,” or similar pre-production
release (collectively, “Pre-final Versions”), as a condition to this
license you agree to discontinue your use of the Pre-final Version and
replace each copy of such Pre-Final Version with the successor general
availability release as soon as it becomes available from BEA.' which is
impossible to satify as BEA does not provide debian packages.
The definition of 'value added solution' is fishy. On one hand, it is
prohibited to create derivative works, on the other hand, it is required
to distribute JRockit with works that 'significantly enhance the
features and/or functionality of the Software.'. Sound like it's
impossible to satify both, so one can't distribute it.
"Confidential Information shall be limited to the Software, the terms
and pricing under this Agreement, and all information clearly identified
as confidential."
So the license agreement is confidential? Are you sure that you're
allowed to post it to debian-java? That would explain why there is no
URL to it ...
"5.4 Distributor Indemnity. Distributor agrees to indemnify, defend
and hold BEA harmless from and against any costs, losses, liabilities,
claims or expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) arising out of
representations or warranties made by Distributor or its agents in the
distribution of any Value Added Solution. For any claim arising
hereunder, BEA agrees (a) to reasonably cooperate with Distributor, (b)
to notify Distributor promptly in writing of the claim, and (c) that
Distributor shall have sole control of the defense and all related
settlement negotiations."
I'd doubt that Debian would like to indemnify BEA any more than they
would like to indemnify Sun. :) That's always been one of the
showstopper clauses with Sun's JRE, no real difference here, afaict.
I didn't use a very fine comb, though, so a review on debian-legal could
turn up more problematic sections.
On a side note, the fear of benchmarking in the license is funny. Sun
eventually got enough courage in their implementation to strike a
similar passage out of their licenses in 1.4 :)
cheers,
dalibor topic
Reply to: