Re: Yet another JDK1.1 llicence question

[Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl>]

On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 05:17:11PM -0700, Stephen Zander wrote:

[...]
> provided that: (i) the Linux Ports of the
>     JDK is not integrated, bundled, combined or associated in any way
>     with a product,

This still holds, right?  I would certainly say that the non-free archive
is "associated" with the Debian distribution, which I would consider to
be a "product".  But maybe these terms have specific legal meanings that
I'm not aware of.

>     (iv) the Linux Ports are distributed subject to a license
>     agreement containing terms and conditions substantially similar to
>     those included in the binary code licenses required by Sun for

Hmm, "substantially similar"?  I guess that's your risk to take.
(I wasn't aware at the start of this discussion that the Blackdown
terms were written by you.  Did I understand it correctly from this
mail?)

>     Richard> Third, does this license amendment affect only clause 1?
>     Richard> It does not say the new terms are the entire agreement.
>     Richard> Which clauses would we still be bound by, exactly?  I see
>     Richard> several terms in the other licenses that would be
>     Richard> unacceptable.
> 
> I'm happy to alter the language to reflect that as long as an entity
> *only* engages in redistribution, they are excempt from several (but
> not all) of the other clauses.  Which ones, other than 1(vi) in the
> JRE addditional terms, bother you specificly?

Okay.  First, there's the general situation: we have three (four?)
contradictory licenses, each of which claims to override the others,
in some cases only partially.  I find it hard to deduce with any
certainty what rights we actually have.

It would be much better if you would write a complete, self-contained
license that spells out these rights, then showed the source code
license to demonstrate your legal basis for issuing such a license,
and included the other licenses only as background material to show
that your terms are indeed "substantially similar".  (Am I correct in
concluding that the Binary Code and Supplemental licenses never
directly applied to the Linux Port?)

Now for specific clauses.  These are all clauses that aren't contradicted
by later terms, so I think they would still hold:

>From the JAVA(TM) DEVELOPMENT KIT VERSION 1.1.8_005
SUPPLEMENTAL LICENSE TERMS:

  1. [...] (ii) may not create, or
  authorize your licensees to create additional classes, interfaces, or
  subpackages that are contained in the "java" or "sun" packages or similar
  as specified by Sun in any class file naming convention. [...]

  2.  Java Platform Interface. In the event that Licensee creates an
  additional API(s) which:  (i) extends the functionality of a Java
  Environment; and, (ii) is exposed to third party software developers for
  the purpose of developing additional software which invokes such
  additional API, Licensee must promptly publish broadly an accurate
  specification for such API for free use by all developers.

  3. Trademarks and Logos. Licensee acknowledges as between it and Sun
  that Sun owns the Java trademark and all Java-related trademarks, logos
  and icons including the Coffee Cup and Duke ("Java Marks") and agrees
  to comply with the Java Trademark Guidelines at
  http://www.sun.com/policies/trademarks.

  [ Three problems with clause 3.  First, Sun has shown in the past
    that it is overeager in its use of the Java mark; if there is a
    conflict then I wouldn't want to concede it in advance.
    Second, this is an agreement to something-on-a-webpage; it could
    change at any time, without notice.  Third, the Trademark Guidelines
    themselves are very detailed.  Look up the "No Possessives",
    "No Plurals", and "No Verbs" paragraphs, for example.  Saying
    "This was very easy to do in Java" would be a breach of the license. ]

>From the JAVA(TM) RUNTIME ENVIRONMENT VERSION 1.1.8_005
SUPPLEMENTAL LICENSE TERMS:

  1. (ii) do not distribute additional software intended to replace any
component(s) of the Software;

  1. (v)  [ same as 1. (ii) in the other license ]

  2. [ same as 3. in the other license ]


I consider these clauses to be dangerous, and I don't think we should
distribute these packages if there is any chance that we would be
bound by them.

Richard Braakman