Re: Yet another JDK1.1 llicence question
>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Braakman <email@example.com> writes:
Richard> On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 05:17:11PM -0700, Stephen Zander
Richard> wrote: [...]
>> provided that: (i) the Linux Ports of the JDK is not
>> integrated, bundled, combined or associated in any way with a
Richard> This still holds, right? I would certainly say that the
Richard> non-free archive is "associated" with the Debian
Richard> distribution, which I would consider to be a "product".
Richard> But maybe these terms have specific legal meanings that
Richard> I'm not aware of.
Except that "non-free is not part of Debian", something that comes up
at least once every flame-war over it's existence. In fact, quite a
number of packages in non-free have restrictions on aggregation.
>> (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
Richard> Hmm, "substantially similar"? I guess that's your risk
Richard> to take. (I wasn't aware at the start of this discussion
Richard> that the Blackdown terms were written by you. Did I
Richard> understand it correctly from this mail?)
Yes, the additional terms at the bottom of the original copyright were
wriiten by me as a member of the Backdown team.
Richard> Okay. First, there's the general situation: we have
Richard> three (four?) contradictory licenses, each of which
Richard> claims to override the others, in some cases only
Richard> partially. I find it hard to deduce with any certainty
Richard> what rights we actually have.
No, there's a base licence, general supplemental terms (from
Blackdown) and specific suplemental terms for both the JDK and JRE
components (copied verbatim from Sun's original language).
Richard> It would be much better if you would write a complete,
Richard> self-contained license that spells out these rights, then
Richard> showed the source code license to demonstrate your legal
Richard> basis for issuing such a license, and included the other
Richard> licenses only as background material to show that your
Richard> terms are indeed "substantially similar".
The catch here is that Sun licenses the JDK & JRE slightly differently
and Debian's policy doesn't deal well with sublicensing. I can Try
and break the file in two if that would make things clearer.
Richard> (Am I correct in concluding that the Binary Code and
Richard> Supplemental licenses never directly applied to the Linux
The Binary Code Licence does not apply to the Blackdown members.
Similar terms (hence the "substaially similar" phrase) do apply to
users of the JDK & JRE produced by the Blackdown team. Distribution
is not use, however, hence my ongoing attempts to find language that
Debian can live with.
>> From the JAVA(TM) DEVELOPMENT KIT VERSION 1.1.8_005
Richard> SUPPLEMENTAL LICENSE TERMS:
Richard> 1. [...] (ii) may not create, or authorize your
Richard> licensees to create additional classes, interfaces, or
Richard> subpackages that are contained in the "java" or "sun"
Richard> packages or similar as specified by Sun in any class file
Richard> naming convention. [...]
You'll find that any Java replacement is subject to those terms under
copyright law. Gjc/kaffe/et al cannot make changes to the publish
Java APIs either.
Richard> 2. Java Platform Interface. In the event that Licensee
Richard> creates an additional API(s) which: (i) extends the
Richard> functionality of a Java Environment; and, (ii) is exposed
Richard> to third party software developers for the purpose of
Richard> developing additional software which invokes such
Richard> additional API, Licensee must promptly publish broadly an
Richard> accurate specification for such API for free use by all
This language still exists in the SCL. If you create new APIs you're
required to publish them to the world.
Richard> 3. Trademarks and Logos. Licensee acknowledges as
Richard> between it and Sun that Sun owns the Java trademark and
Richard> all Java-related trademarks, logos and icons including
Richard> the Coffee Cup and Duke ("Java Marks") and agrees to
Richard> comply with the Java Trademark Guidelines at
Richard> [ Three problems with clause 3. First, Sun has shown
Richard> in the past that it is overeager in its use of the Java
Richard> mark; if there is a conflict then I wouldn't want to
Richard> concede it in advance. Second, this is an agreement to
Richard> something-on-a-webpage; it could change at any time,
Richard> without notice. Third, the Trademark Guidelines
Richard> themselves are very detailed. Look up the "No
Richard> Possessives", "No Plurals", and "No Verbs" paragraphs,
Richard> for example. Saying "This was very easy to do in Java"
Richard> would be a breach of the license. ]
And you are already subject to such restrictions under Trademark law.
Try doing something computer related with the word Java now and see
how long it takes Sun's lawyers to arrive.
>> From the JAVA(TM) RUNTIME ENVIRONMENT VERSION 1.1.8_005
Richard> SUPPLEMENTAL LICENSE TERMS:
Richard> 1. (ii) do not distribute additional software intended
Richard> to replace any component(s) of the Software;
Debian does not distribute software intended to replace components of
either the JDK or the JRE. Debian distributes laternatives to the JDK
& the JRE.
Richard> 1. (v) [ same as 1. (ii) in the other license ]
Richard> 2. [ same as 3. in the other license ]
To Republicans, limited government means not assisting people they
would sooner see shoveled into mass graves. -- Kenneth R. Kahn