Re: Java debs anyone?
Eric Gaumer wrote:
If I manage a few hundred servers that all use Java then I have to
download Java on each machine individually? I can't provide that package
to my network via apt? Maybe not globally to the world but how about
locally to all nodes on the network. This is silly. I could see if it
were something I paid for. Then it would make sense that each machine
obtain a legal licensed copy but we are talking about a free program
Non free licenses are often silly and ridiculous. They need not to make
sense to the end user, they exist to give the copyright holders rights
that the copyright doesn't give them. All of Sun's licenses for Java are
absurd at best, and legal minefields at worst. They are no different
than most other non-free licenses, though. Which is why people should
not use non-free software in general.
The truth of the matter is that nobody here seems to have legal
expertise in the matter and therefore can't accurately determine what
exactly the license allows for.
Only a lawyer can tell you what precisely is legal in your precise
context of use of the IBM JDK due to their ambiguous license. Laymen can
make good faith efforts to interpret the license, but if you want legal
advice, ask a lawyer. If you are using the IBM JDK (or any other
non-free software, in general) commercially, you should have your
company's legal staff check over the licensing terms wrt to your planned
usage to make sure that the BSA doesn't come and shut you down when a
disgruntled employee calls them later.
It's worth a try and wouldn't require much effort on their part. We'll
see just how committed IBM is to the Linux end user.
I applaud your energy, but it's a wasted effort. Many people have tried
to talk to Sun about making it easier to redistribute Sun-derived
runtime environments for years. Nothing ever actually came out of it.
Sun does not listen to people pointing out flaws in their Java licenses.
Never did, never will.
Given that Sun provides a large chunk of IBM's JDK, there is no chance
IBM could change the license of Sun's code if Sun doesn't want such a
change for their code. Given that they have refused to fix the licenses
in the past 8 years, they will surely continue to refuse to do so in the
next 8 years :)
The ambiguous clauses in the JDK license are not a problem IBM (or BEA,
Blackdown, or other Sun-derived code porters) can solve, it's a problem
solely created and maintained by Sun for Sun's benefit.