[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Intent to package Jikes



Raul Miller wrote:

> Mike Goldman <whig@by.net> wrote:
> > Jikes is a Java compiler that translates Java source files as defined
> > in The Java Language
>
> There's currently a discussion on the Jikes license going on in
> debian-legal.  [Bruce and Eric are participating.]
>
> One point in particular from that discussion is significant:  The license
> is still a draft.  You might want to wait for the thing to actually
> be released.

Perhaps I should subscribe to debian-legal and discuss it there (though I'd
really hate to read all the politics).  This seems a fairly simple technical
matter.  The license states in relevant part:

   This Agreement may be changed by IBM from time to time, and the amended
license will
   apply to all copies of the Program downloaded after the new license is
posted.

According to my reading, any changes which may be made to the existing license
terms will not apply to copies of the Program downloaded BEFORE the new license
is posted.  Ergo, the license as provided is all that applies or ever will apply
to the presently released source code.  If the present language is
DFSG-compliant, then Jikes should be okay to include in Debian.

On the negative side, it appears that Jikes depends upon JDK, which is presently
non-free.  Therefore Jikes would have to go into contrib instead of main, if I
understand policy correctly.

There is one other problem that should be considered.  The source includes four
machine-generated header files:  javasym.h, javadef.h, javadcl.h and javaprs.h.
These are made by running the source file java.g through a program called
jikespg, which in turn is binary-only available (but free for download).  I am
not sure of the policy implications of this, three of the four are easily
user-modifiable, but javadcl.h is probably not as a practical matter.  Should
this be treated as a non-free dependency, or does it render the whole package
non-free?



Reply to: