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 (monetarily speaking).
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.
cheers, dalibor topic