Re: JFORK: Or a reasonable response to the Sun SCSL
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 12:55:21PM -0500, Ean R . Schuessler wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 09:30:44AM -0700, Cris J. Holdorph wrote:
> > Ean R . Schuessler Writes:
> > > Now, maybe you can show me a way of getting specs from Sun that would waive
> > > you of this liability, but I don't know where.
> >
> > For the Java language (e.g., .java -> .class files)
> >
> > http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jls/index.html
>
> No, I believe that if you read the SCSL again you will see that its
> terms override the terms you recieve with other documentation. Not that
> I'm a lawyer, but I believe that is the case.
I am tempted to ask -- how can they hold you to a document they never forced
you to read? Do the licences for the other pieces even *mention* the SCSL?
If you do not know from reading the materials that came with your tools that
they are holding you to something else as well, I think they would be
hard-pressed to make it hold. Of course, they have more money than I do, so
a long trial would hurt them much less than it would hurt me. :)
--
Seth Arnold | http://www.willamette.edu/~sarnold/
Hate spam? See http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ for help
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into
your ~/.signature to help me spread!
Reply to: