Mailing-List: contact jcp-open-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jcp-open@apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (nike.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <46BC3B9E.5030808@apache.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:19:10 +0100
From: Steve Loughran <stevel@apache.org>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: jcp-open@apache.org
Subject: Re: Looks like Sun responded to the Open Letter
References: <A492415C-C122-4E53-A60E-BC9C84DB4E39@hogstrom.org>
	 <46BAFAD1.2050404@apache.org>
	 <A1C04FB2-C26C-4FEC-B5BA-CADF6E6E8719@pobox.com>
	 <3d4032300708091955i4604c1abv5285a88f969f52dc@mail.gmail.com>
 <1186732718.3695.224.camel@forge.intermeta.de>
In-Reply-To: <1186732718.3695.224.camel@forge.intermeta.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Henning Schmiedehausen wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-08-09 at 22:55 -0400, Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 8/9/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 9, 2007, at 5:30 AM, Steve Loughran wrote:
>>>
>>>> Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>>>>> http://news.com.com/Sun+lowers+barriers+to+open-source+Java/
>>>>> 2100-7344_3-6201440.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news But
>>>>> the new program doesn't extend to Apache Harmony, a rival effort
>>>>> to build a version of Java Standard Edition. Geir Magnusson, a
>>>>> Harmony leader, had called on Sun in April to liberalize the
>>>>> compatibility kit terms.
>>> I wouldn't consider this a response to the open letter.
>> Neither would I, but I would consider the following to be a response:
>>
>> http://blogs.sun.com/richgreen/entry/score_another_for_clarity_and
>>
> 

Also quoting

"But because the Apache code is not governed by the GPL, and does not 
require code sharing by any entity using or modifying Harmony, the terms 
of this license are the same terms under which Sun licenses the JCK to 
commercial entities that build their own independent implementations of 
the Java SE platform. As was made clear in their open letter to Sun, the 
ASF is not satisfied with these terms."

Does this mean no other JDK licensee has the right to embed java SE?

"anyone�yes, even Sun�s competitors�can use the Java GPL source code for 
anything�yes, even a fork�as long as they publish their modifications 
under the GPL�no other consideration required"

Actually, GPL says anything I do internally is my business. I can deploy 
a modified GC algorithm on my 50K servers and

> Quoting:
> 

> 
> BTW: Where *are* the terms of that license?

dalibor has the pointers

http://robilad.livejournal.com/17156.html

See the license: http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-tck-license.pdf

and the FAQ: http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#k

"Implementations must be substantially derived from the OpenJDK source 
code and must be distributed under GPL which of course would be a 
requirement of any implementation making use of code from the OpenJDK 
code commons"


"An implementation is "substantially derived" from the OpenJDK code base 
if it includes a large body of code existing in the code base that does 
something identifiably significant, or implements some set of APIs in 
their entirety. The code need not be part of Sun's implementation it 
only needs to exist in the code base."

the 'substantially derived' clause is there to stop anyone testing a 
harmony release that I made under GPL, and certifying compliance.


well, fine, but I hope nobody in Sun was expecting anyone in the ant 
team to implement
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42838 , Add support 
for JSR 199: Java Compiler API
Which means that netbeans wont support it either. They lose.