Bug#161603: packaging util.concurrent for Debian
> > Yes, I do have explict permission from Sun.=20
>
> Can you clarify this? Debian requires permission to modify, distribute
> and distribute modified versions, not just permission to use. Also,
> there can't be any limitations of those freedoms for certain purposes
> (like restriction of the use or sale for profit).
>
> Best would be a clear license statement from Sun saying that the derived
> work you made based on their code has all the freedoms mentioned above.
> I can ask Sun for this if it's not convenient for you.
I think I'm OK. The permission agreement I signed says in its
entirety (sorry that pasting from acroread doesn't preserve format)
TECHNOLOGY LICENSE FROM SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. TO DOUG LEA Whereas
Doug Lea desires to utilize certain Java Software technologies in the
util.concurrent technology; and Whereas Sun Microsystems, Inc. ( Sun )
desires that Doug Lea utilize certain Java Software technologies in
the util.concurrent technology; Therefore the parties agree as
follows. Java Software technologies means
classes/java/util/ArrayList.java, and
classes/java/util/HashMap.java. The Java Software technologies are
Copyright (c) 1994-2001 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights
reserved. Sun hereby grants Doug Lea a non-exclusive, worldwide,
non-transferrable license to use and distribute the Java Software
technologies as a part of a larger work in source and binary forms,
with or without modification, provided that the following conditions
are met: -Neither the name of or trademarks of Sun may be used to
endorse or promote products derived from the Java Software technology
without specific prior written permission. -Redistributions of source
or binary code must be accompanied by the following notice and
disclaimers: Portions copyright Sun Microsystems, Inc. Used with kind
permission. This software is provided "AS IS," without a warranty of
any kind. ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS AND
WARRANTIES, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT, ARE HEREBY EXCLUDED. SUN
MICROSYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY
DAMAGES SUFFERED BY LICENSEE AS A RESULT OF USING, MODIFYING OR
DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE OR ITS DERIVATIVES. IN NO EVENT WILL SUN
MICROSYSTEMS, INC. OR ITS LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOST REVENUE,
PROFIT OR DATA, OR FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL,
INCIDENTAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, HOWEVER CAUSED AND REGARDLESS OF THE
THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE
SOFTWARE, EVEN IF SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. You acknowledge that Software is not
designed, licensed or intended for use in the design, construction,
operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility. signed [Doug Lea]
dated
> Well, I'm not holding my breath for a truely open source Java any time
> soon, but I hope they will refine their license enough to let others at
> least distribute their JRE and JDK. The current license has several
> restrictions of distributors which are too hard (or legally troublesome)
> for groups like Debian to meet (examples are forbidding distribution of
> alternative implementations of the core Java classes and a requirement
> of indemnificaion from any damages suffered by downloaders).
>
Right. The key is for Sun to keep their legitimate desire for people
not to call non-compliant implementations "Java" distinct from their
distribution licenses. Partially liberating the TCK (compliance test
suites) was a pretty big step towards this, so I truly am
optimistic. But it is very slow going.
I should also have mentioned that dl.util.concurrent is on its way
out. As you may have noticed on the intro page, we are in the midst of
putting this stuff in Java proper (as java.util.concurrent) for
release 1.5. But the package will also be available separately on the
same terms as always. There will be a major update hopefully around
January so the the APIs will match. For more details, see.
http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/concurrency-interest/index.html
-Doug
Reply to: