Re: JFORK: Or a reasonable response to the Sun SCSL
Ean R . Schuessler Writes:
> 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.
This has been discussed before. I have pointed out that you do NOT need to
sign the SCSL to purchase a book that describes the specification of the JVM
and the Java 2 class libraries. It *IS* possible to fully implement these
specs without agreeing to the SCSL.
> The SCSL is the terms of distribution for Jini, universally.
> The SCSL is the terms of distribution for the new JDK, almost universally.
Define "almost universally". I have NEVER signed the SCSL and I have free
access (well maybe the purchase of a book) to the spec of the JVM and the
Java class libraries that Sun's JDK 1.2 are based on.
> The SCSL is the future of Sun licensing.
Maybe. I would be surprised if they stopped publishing books though. And I
would be even more surprised if they started requiring people to sign the
SCSL to buy their book. I would also think the new standards group they went
to (I forget the name) is going to accept their proposal to standardize
Java if the JVM/Java class libraries spec is *ONLY* available under the
SCSL.
> 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.
Oh yup, took the words right out of my mouth. I also send Sun signed
blank checks every month. The day Sun starts charging for the JDK and/or
the Spec it is based on, is the day I will begin a career change. I support
free software, but I guess I am not as "commited" to the idea that any
software that is "not free" is evil.
---- Cris J H
--
Cris J. Holdorph
holdorph@home.com
Reply to: