[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Yet another JDK1.1 llicence question

>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Braakman <dark@xs4all.nl> 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
    >> product,

    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
    >> for

    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
    Richard> Port?)

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>   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
    Richard> developers.

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> http://www.sun.com/policies/trademarks.

    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.


    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 ]

See above.


To Republicans, limited government means not assisting people they
would sooner see shoveled into mass graves. -- Kenneth R. Kahn

Reply to: