www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew C. Oliver" <acoli...@buni.org>
Subject Re: No NDAs? Or open TCKs?
Date Fri, 06 Jul 2007 23:30:47 GMT
Oh... OpenJDK is for little boys and girls. Big boys and girls use the 
"certified" proprietary software... Nice.

I do want to point out as well that the previous statements that OpenJDK 
is open source or GPL are imprecise if not inaccurate. There is a 
special proprietary binary license in addition to the GPL that applies 
to portions of the JDK: 
http://openjdk.java.net/legal/binary-plugs-2007-05-08.html

It contains such yummy tidbits as:

"

(b) You may not modify Software.

(c) You may not rent, lease, lend or encumber Software.

(d) You do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or notices contained
in the Software,

(e) Unless enforcement is prohibited by applicable law, you may not
decompile, or reverse engineer Software.

(j) If your Permitted Use in this Agreement permits the distribution
Software or portions of the Software, you may only distribute the Software
subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent with
the terms contained in this Agreement.
"

So more accurate is that parts of the JDK are open source/free software but OpenJDK itself
(as a whole) is not in fact open source or free software.

The most ironic part is:

lib/$ARCH/libjsoundalsa.so  (on all Linux platforms)

ALSA being LGPL and GPL and I'm betting this lil wrapper ain' much more than the JNI coupling.

Isn't playing in the grey areas of "open source" that isn't "open source" and "open standards"
that are neither "open" nor "standards" fun?

-Andy

Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> There is no binary for OpenJDK.
>
> Work out the details yourself :)
>
> geir
>
> On Jul 4, 2007, at 1:48 AM, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
>> On Jul 3, 2007, at 9:00 PM, Joe Schaefer wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Hogstrom <matt@hogstrom.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 3, 2007, at 5:06 PM, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>>>>
>>>> *This* disagreement with Sun is about a company that accepted our
>>>> help and intellectual property based on an agreed set of terms and
>>>> then broke that agreement at the last minute for pure profit reasons.
>>>>
>>>> I've heard this comment a few times. Did Sun specifically state that
>>>> they would remove the FOU restrictions for the JCK when licensing to
>>>> Apache? If so, is it in a form we can use publicly as that in and of
>>>> itself is pretty damaging.
>>>
>>> Read the board minutes. The first license they offered us for harmony
>>> had no FOU restrictions.
>>
>> Also as Andy pointed out, the Sun owned OpenJDK has no FOU 
>> restrictions, so they not playing fair. This is an obvious double 
>> standard and something we should all blog about.
>>
>> -dain


-- 
Buni Meldware Communication Suite
http://buni.org
Multi-platform and extensible Email, 
Calendaring (including freebusy), 
Rich Webmail, Web-calendaring, ease 
of installation/administration.


Mime
View raw message