Re: Towards Java Libre

[Dalibor Topic <robilad@kaffe.org>]

Tom Marble <Tom.Marble <at> Sun.COM> writes:

> 
> Arnaud:
> 
> Please allow me to elaborate on some points not covered by David....
> 
> > I saw a sun-jdk-source package or something... that means all those who
> > install this package and look at the sources will not be able to help
> > GNU Classpath. In my POV, one of the important thing we can do in Debian
> > is helping the GNU Classpath project and friends.
> 
> This is the src.zip file that is part of every JDK.
> You are concerned about "tainting" -- and you do not need to
> worry about this.
> Even if you accepted the JRL and looked at Mustang sources
> you still would not be "tainted":
> 
> http://weblogs.java.net/blog/editors/archives/2005/04/jrl_faq_18.html

That's one of the things people working on free runtimes tend to have a
different opinion on, because we have to look at the worst case.

See for example the opinion of IBM's counsel at

http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/www-legal-discuss/200505.mbox/%3COF76586EEB.32A8F63F-ON04256FFC.004F25E4-04256FFC.00507B90@us.ibm.com%3E

about the residual rights clause of the JRL:

"Notice that the residuals clause does not extend to copyrights.  You can 
study Sun's source code under the JRL and then turn around and write your 
own implementation relying solely on what you remember, and you're covered 
for any potential trade secrets that Sun might have had.  However, if your 
code turns out to be "substantially similar" (an intentionally vague legal 
standard), then Sun might have a copyright claim that it can assert.  You 
need to make sure that your code is not substantially similiar.  How one 
does that without constantly referring to the code that you're trying not 
to copy without looking like you're trying to copy without getting caught 
is an interesting question.

Sun probably didn't intend this result.  What they probably meant was that 
as long as you aren't making literal copies of material portions of their 
source code, you're covered by the residuals clause.  If that's the case, 
I think their desire for brevity got in the way of clarity.  They would 
need to expand that section a bit to make it clear that the residuals 
license covered copyright issues as well as long as you didn't literally 
copy large amounts of code."

cheers,
dalibor topic