www-jcp-open mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: No NDAs? Or open TCKs?
Date Sat, 07 Jul 2007 16:13:43 GMT

On Jul 6, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Andrew C. Oliver wrote:

> Oh... OpenJDK is for little boys and girls. Big boys and girls use  
> the "certified" proprietary software... Nice.

Nope. That wasn't the implication. The implication is that they have  
a big problem - the FOU restrictions only apply to binaries but also  
the patent grants only apply to tested binaries.

>
> 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