| 1 |
Actually we are offering Sun's JDK under a free license that allows |
| 2 |
any Solaris or Linux distribution to redistribute the binary. I've |
| 3 |
been working with Joshua and Karl to help/advise them on integrating |
| 4 |
Sun's JDK with Gentoo under that new license. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
The new license .. the DLJ .. Distribution License for Java or |
| 7 |
something like that .. is meant to enable an operating system |
| 8 |
redistributor, like Gentoo, to easily incorporate Sun's JDK with |
| 9 |
their OS distribution. The work for Gentoo is in Gentoo's package |
| 10 |
system now and there are instructions on the gentoo.org web site in |
| 11 |
the Java user guide on how to install Sun's JDK alongside other |
| 12 |
JDK's. I understand the bits are still in the unstable branch. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
You can learn about the license and the program at http://jdk- |
| 15 |
distros.dev.java.net/ |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
The DLJ was announced on May 16, 2006 at Java ONE this year. I see |
| 18 |
that the email you're responding to was written long before we |
| 19 |
announced the DLJ. I just read the email thread you're responding |
| 20 |
to, and it was a painful walk down memory lane. Of course the DLJ |
| 21 |
announcement was immediately overshadowed by the other announcement |
| 22 |
that day. Hopefully between the DLJ license and the imminent |
| 23 |
beginning for open source Java, that we can put all the past pain |
| 24 |
behind us. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
- David Herron |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
On Sep 9, 2006, at 12:07 AM, Thufir wrote: |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> On Thu, 12 May 2005, Yannick Menager wrote: |
| 33 |
> [...] |
| 34 |
>> Circumventing the implicit wishes of the copyright holder ??? |
| 35 |
> [...] |
| 36 |
>> The case with JDocs is very different, they do not provide a |
| 37 |
>> *tool* to |
| 38 |
>> download/view/manipulates the J2SE API, they took it, and put it |
| 39 |
>> online |
| 40 |
>> on their website, which the license does not allow for. |
| 41 |
>> |
| 42 |
>> The equivalent of what they did is the equivalent of us putting |
| 43 |
>> the jdk |
| 44 |
>> binary in the gentoo mirrors, which is indeed not allowed by the |
| 45 |
>> license. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> Why does the copyright holder, Sun, not grant the Gentoo Foundation |
| 48 |
> a license to distribute the binary? Weird territory, but could a |
| 49 |
> license be purchased from Sun for a, hopefully, nominal amount? |
| 50 |
> Or, even, why would Sun want to charge the Gentoo Foundation any |
| 51 |
> money at all? |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> Which brings up the contract. I've downloaded and never read the |
| 54 |
> contract, nor do I plan to. So long as I don't redistribute the |
| 55 |
> JVM, why does Sun even want a contract in the first place? |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> -Thufir |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> -- |
| 61 |
> gentoo-java@g.o mailing list |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
-- |
| 65 |
gentoo-java@g.o mailing list |
Archives