Re: JFORK: Or a reasonable response to the Sun SCSL
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 09:30:23PM -0700, Cris J. Holdorph wrote:
> If this ever happens, I will no longer support Debian or SPI, and I will
> try to use other alternatives.
>
> I thoroughly disagree that even a "minimal" fork is good for Java.
> I encourage and applaud those doing free implementations from the published
> Sun documents that are not under SCSL (e.g., books in stores). I disagree
> with the SCSL. But let me restate, that I a LONG TIME advocate of Debian,
> will become one of it's staunchest opponets if SPI becomes involved in
> any kind of "fork" of Java.
I don't think you understand Chris. With the SCSL it is NOT POSSIBLE to
produce a free implementation of the published specs. The SCSL does NOT
ALLOW IT.
According to the SCSL, an implementation of specifications published
under the SCSL is considered a _derivative_work_ and is still covered
by the terms of the SCSL. The SCSL states that you cannot use SCSL covered
code for any commercial purpose (this includes internal use) without
executing a licensing agreement with Sun. This, of course, is not compatible
with any notion of free software.
The SCSL is the terms of distribution for Jini, universally.
The SCSL is the terms of distribution for the new JDK, almost universally.
The SCSL is the future of Sun licensing.
So, I guess what you are saying is that you are a Sun supporter before you
are a free software supporter and that you absolutely disagree with the
concept of not paying Sun for _everything_ that is done in the future with
Java.
?,
E
--
__________________________________________________________________
Ean Schuessler A guy running Linux
Novare International Inc. A company running Linux
--- Some or all of the above signature may be a joke
Reply to: