From galabar at hotmail.com Thu Jul 2 00:25:25 2009 From: galabar at hotmail.com (Kevin Regan) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 19:25:25 -0500 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing Message-ID: A portion of our client library (.so) uses JNI and is loaded into our Java application. Does this client library now fall under the OpenJDK license? Does this libraries source code need to be shared? Are there any other licensing issues to be aware of when working with JNI? Sincerely, Kevin Regan _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009 From Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM Thu Jul 2 00:43:04 2009 From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM (Dalibor Topic) Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:43:04 +0200 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A4C0298.6070405@sun.com> Kevin Regan wrote: > > A portion of our client library (.so) uses JNI and is loaded into our Java application. Does this client library now fall under the OpenJDK license? Does this libraries source code need to be shared? Are there any other licensing issues to be aware of when working with JNI? Hi Kevin, The licensing FAQ is at http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g . cheers, dalibor topic -- ******************************************************************* Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring From galabar at hotmail.com Thu Jul 2 00:57:59 2009 From: galabar at hotmail.com (Kevin Regan) Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 19:57:59 -0500 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: <4A4C0298.6070405@sun.com> References: <4A4C0298.6070405@sun.com> Message-ID: Thank you for the response. I've read the FAQ. However, I don't see any references to JNI. I do see the Classpath exception. However, I'm not sure how it applies to JNI. Is there a specific link within the license section that covers this? --Kevin > Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 02:43:04 +0200 > From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM > Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing > To: galabar at hotmail.com > CC: discuss at openjdk.java.net > > Kevin Regan wrote: > > > > A portion of our client library (.so) uses JNI and is loaded into our Java application. Does this client library now fall under the OpenJDK license? Does this libraries source code need to be shared? Are there any other licensing issues to be aware of when working with JNI? > > Hi Kevin, > > The licensing FAQ is at http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g . > > cheers, > dalibor topic > -- > ******************************************************************* > Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 > Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim > Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 > Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net > D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten > Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring > > _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009 From galabar at hotmail.com Thu Jul 2 17:56:08 2009 From: galabar at hotmail.com (Kevin Regan) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 12:56:08 -0500 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: References: <4A4C0298.6070405@sun.com> Message-ID: Maybe I can be a bit more specific. I'm reading the Classpath exception as meaning that a compiled java .class file that is run with the JRE would otherwise be subject to the GPL, if not for the exception. Is this correct? Does this extend to JNI libraries (that do not reference any OpenJDK code) that are actually linked into the JRE through a dynamic library at runtime? --Kevin > From: galabar at hotmail.com > To: dalibor.topic at sun.com > Subject: RE: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing > Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 19:57:59 -0500 > CC: discuss at openjdk.java.net > > > Thank you for the response. I've read the FAQ. However, I don't see any references to JNI. I do see the Classpath exception. However, I'm not sure how it applies to JNI. > > Is there a specific link within the license section that covers this? > > --Kevin > > > > Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 02:43:04 +0200 > > From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM > > Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing > > To: galabar at hotmail.com > > CC: discuss at openjdk.java.net > > > > Kevin Regan wrote: > > > > > > A portion of our client library (.so) uses JNI and is loaded into our Java application. Does this client library now fall under the OpenJDK license? Does this libraries source code need to be shared? Are there any other licensing issues to be aware of when working with JNI? > > > > Hi Kevin, > > > > The licensing FAQ is at http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g . > > > > cheers, > > dalibor topic > > -- > > ******************************************************************* > > Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 > > Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim > > Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 > > Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net > > D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten > > Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 > > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel > > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. > http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009 _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009 From galabar at hotmail.com Thu Jul 2 19:31:12 2009 From: galabar at hotmail.com (Kevin Regan) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:31:12 -0500 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: References: <4A4C0298.6070405@sun.com> Message-ID: I'm seeing that the only file in the hotspot code to have the Classpath exception is jni_zero.cpp. Can I assume from this that JNI code falls under then Classpath exception? --Kevin > > Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 02:43:04 +0200 > > From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM > > Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing > > To: galabar at hotmail.com > > CC: discuss at openjdk.java.net > > > > Kevin Regan wrote: > > > > > > A portion of our client library (.so) uses JNI and is loaded into our Java application. Does this client library now fall under the OpenJDK license? Does this libraries source code need to be shared? Are there any other licensing issues to be aware of when working with JNI? > > > > Hi Kevin, > > > > The licensing FAQ is at http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g . > > > > cheers, > > dalibor topic > > -- > > ******************************************************************* > > Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 > > Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim > > Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 > > Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net > > D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten > > Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 > > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel > > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. > http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009 _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Get 25 GB of free online storage. http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009 From galabar at hotmail.com Thu Jul 2 19:32:15 2009 From: galabar at hotmail.com (Kevin Regan) Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:32:15 -0500 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: References: <4A4C0298.6070405@sun.com> Message-ID: That is jni_zero.h (not .cpp). --Kevin > From: galabar at hotmail.com > To: dalibor.topic at sun.com; discuss at openjdk.java.net > Subject: RE: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing > Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:31:12 -0500 > > > I'm seeing that the only file in the hotspot code to have the Classpath exception is jni_zero.cpp. Can I assume from this that JNI code falls under then Classpath exception? > > --Kevin > > > > > Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 02:43:04 +0200 > > > From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM > > > Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing > > > To: galabar at hotmail.com > > > CC: discuss at openjdk.java.net > > > > > > Kevin Regan wrote: > > > > > > > > A portion of our client library (.so) uses JNI and is loaded into our Java application. Does this client library now fall under the OpenJDK license? Does this libraries source code need to be shared? Are there any other licensing issues to be aware of when working with JNI? > > > > > > Hi Kevin, > > > > > > The licensing FAQ is at http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g . > > > > > > cheers, > > > dalibor topic > > > -- > > > ******************************************************************* > > > Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 > > > Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim > > > Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 > > > Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net > > > D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com > > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten > > > Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 > > > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel > > > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. > > http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009 > > _________________________________________________________________ > Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Get 25 GB of free online storage. > http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009 _________________________________________________________________ Hotmail? has ever-growing storage! Don?t worry about storage limits. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009 From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Thu Jul 2 22:44:56 2009 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:44:56 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 63 is available at the openjdk.java.net website Message-ID: <4A4D3868.3030701@sun.com> The OpenJDK source is available at: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/57f7e028c7ad The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 63 are available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) Summary of changes: http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b63.html -Xiomara From mark at klomp.org Fri Jul 3 07:00:07 2009 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:00:07 +0200 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: References: <4A4C0298.6070405@sun.com> Message-ID: <1246604408.2738.6.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Hi Kevin, On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 12:56 -0500, Kevin Regan wrote: > I'm reading the Classpath exception as meaning that a compiled > java .class file that is run with the JRE would otherwise be subject > to the GPL, if not for the exception. Is this correct? Yes. > Does this extend to JNI libraries (that do not reference any OpenJDK > code) that are actually linked into the JRE through a dynamic library > at runtime? The exception is not specific to any language (be it a module written in java, c, c++, etc). So it covers anything written that is an independent module according to the exception clause. If that isn't clear, then maybe someone from Sun can update the openjdk legal page and/or faq. Cheers, Mark From debio264 at gmail.com Sat Jul 4 03:39:26 2009 From: debio264 at gmail.com (Andrew Wiley) Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2009 23:39:26 -0400 Subject: Dynamic Class Reloading Message-ID: I'm fairly new to OpenJDK, and I'm wondering if there's any way to reload a class while an application is in operation. There's JavaRebel and Apache JCI to do this with the Sun JDK, but I don't know if there's an equivalent for OpenJDK. I have a server application that I want to be able to update without rebooting it. I would like to at least be able to reload classes when the signature doesn't change. These would be classes on the classpath that are used normally (directly, not through reflection) in the application. Is this possible? On a side note, I'm fairly sure this has been done, but does OpenJDK run on ARM systems? From Peter.Kessler at Sun.COM Sat Jul 4 05:47:31 2009 From: Peter.Kessler at Sun.COM (Peter B. Kessler) Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:47:31 -0700 Subject: Dynamic Class Reloading In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A4EECF3.9040300@Sun.COM> Andrew Wiley wrote: > I'm fairly new to OpenJDK, and I'm wondering if there's any way to reload a > class while an application is in operation. There's JavaRebel and Apache JCI > to do this with the Sun JDK, but I don't know if there's an equivalent for > OpenJDK. > I have a server application that I want to be able to update without > rebooting it. I would like to at least be able to reload classes when the > signature doesn't change. These would be classes on the classpath that are > used normally (directly, not through reflection) in the application. Is this > possible? If you can describe the part you want to reload as an interface, you can change the implementation behind the interface at any time by having your own classloader. Nothing JDK-specific is required, nor is anything needed beyond what's already in the JVM. ... peter From debio264 at gmail.com Sat Jul 4 17:24:38 2009 From: debio264 at gmail.com (Andrew Wiley) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 13:24:38 -0400 Subject: Dynamic Class Reloading In-Reply-To: References: <4A4EECF3.9040300@Sun.COM> Message-ID: On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 1:47 AM, Peter B. Kessler wrote: > > > If you can describe the part you want to reload as an interface, you can > change the implementation behind the interface at any time by having your > own classloader. Nothing JDK-specific is required, nor is anything needed > beyond what's already in the JVM. > > ... peter > I'm looking for something more general than that... let me just describe the functionality I'm trying to achieve. I'm writing a MUD (it's basically a text-based RPG), and I'm trying to come up with some equivalent for the "copyover" or "hot boot" functionality that MUDs written in C and C+ have. Basically, they write the state of the game out to a file, have the MUD execute itself, and then load the game back up. In this way, a MUD can reboot without disconnecting any of the players. The socket descriptors aren't closed during the reboot, which I believe cannot be replicated in Java. In Java, I was hoping I would just be able to reload classes without rebooting the MUD to come close to duplicating this functionality. Andrew From robert at marcanoonline.com Sat Jul 4 17:39:37 2009 From: robert at marcanoonline.com (Robert Marcano) Date: Sat, 4 Jul 2009 13:09:37 -0430 Subject: Dynamic Class Reloading In-Reply-To: References: <4A4EECF3.9040300@Sun.COM> Message-ID: On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Andrew Wiley wrote: > I'm looking for something more general than that... let me just describe the > functionality I'm trying to achieve. > I'm writing a MUD (it's basically a text-based RPG), and I'm trying to come > up with some equivalent for the "copyover" or "hot boot" functionality that > MUDs written in C and C+ have. Basically, they write the state of the game > out to a file, have the MUD execute itself, and then load the game back up. > In this way, a MUD can reboot without disconnecting any of the players. The > socket descriptors aren't closed during the reboot, which I believe cannot > be replicated in Java. > In Java, I was hoping I would just be able to reload classes without > rebooting the MUD to come close to duplicating this functionality. I think that still can be done with an standard JVM, use you own classloader, be careful making you class serialization works when the classes definitions change, the only problem you will have is that released JVMs does not have a way to free the classloader you are discarding, something that is being resolved with OpenJDK 7, so each time you "reboot" you will not free the memory used by the previous classloader (class definitions not instances data) -- Robert Marcano From Michael.McMahon at Sun.COM Sat Jul 4 21:29:03 2009 From: Michael.McMahon at Sun.COM (Michael McMahon) Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:29:03 +0100 Subject: Dynamic Class Reloading In-Reply-To: References: <4A4EECF3.9040300@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <4A4FC99F.2020404@sun.com> Robert Marcano wrote: > On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Andrew Wiley wrote: > >> I'm looking for something more general than that... let me just describe the >> functionality I'm trying to achieve. >> I'm writing a MUD (it's basically a text-based RPG), and I'm trying to come >> up with some equivalent for the "copyover" or "hot boot" functionality that >> MUDs written in C and C+ have. Basically, they write the state of the game >> out to a file, have the MUD execute itself, and then load the game back up. >> In this way, a MUD can reboot without disconnecting any of the players. The >> socket descriptors aren't closed during the reboot, which I believe cannot >> be replicated in Java. >> In Java, I was hoping I would just be able to reload classes without >> rebooting the MUD to come close to duplicating this functionality. >> > > I think that still can be done with an standard JVM, use you own > classloader, be careful making you class serialization works when the > classes definitions change, the only problem you will have is that > released JVMs does not have a way to free the classloader you are > discarding, something that is being resolved with OpenJDK 7, so each > time you "reboot" you will not free the memory used by the previous > classloader (class definitions not instances data) > > In jdk7, the standard URLClassLoader now has a close() method, which allows a class loader instance to be disposed of. So a new instance can be created, with (potentially) new implementations of any classes. If you want to keep sockets open, then the Socket objects would have to be managed by a layer above the class loader though. Michael. From Peter.Kessler at Sun.COM Sat Jul 4 21:51:34 2009 From: Peter.Kessler at Sun.COM (Peter B. Kessler) Date: Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:51:34 -0700 Subject: Dynamic Class Reloading In-Reply-To: References: <4A4EECF3.9040300@Sun.COM> Message-ID: <4A4FCEE6.6020300@Sun.COM> Robert Marcano wrote: > On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Andrew Wiley wrote: >> I'm looking for something more general than that... let me just describe the >> functionality I'm trying to achieve. >> I'm writing a MUD (it's basically a text-based RPG), and I'm trying to come >> up with some equivalent for the "copyover" or "hot boot" functionality that >> MUDs written in C and C+ have. Basically, they write the state of the game >> out to a file, have the MUD execute itself, and then load the game back up. >> In this way, a MUD can reboot without disconnecting any of the players. The >> socket descriptors aren't closed during the reboot, which I believe cannot >> be replicated in Java. >> In Java, I was hoping I would just be able to reload classes without >> rebooting the MUD to come close to duplicating this functionality. > > I think that still can be done with an standard JVM, use you own > classloader, be careful making you class serialization works when the > classes definitions change, the only problem you will have is that > released JVMs does not have a way to free the classloader you are > discarding, something that is being resolved with OpenJDK 7, so each > time you "reboot" you will not free the memory used by the previous > classloader (class definitions not instances data) The ClassLoaders and the Classes they load will be garbage collected when there are no more instances of *any* Classes loaded by that ClassLoader. Each Object instance has a reference to its Class, and each Class has a reference to its ClassLoader, and each ClassLoader has a list of all the Classes it has loaded. When there are no more instances of any of the Classes, there are no reachable references to the ClassLoader. It's sometimes tricky to make sure your application drops all references to the instances. That's among the reasons you want to write your own ClassLoader, so that Classes you have replaced can be collected. And among the reasons you want your ClassLoader to load as few classes as possible, so extraneous objects don't end up hanging on to the ClassLoader and all the other Classes it loaded. ... peter From Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM Tue Jul 7 13:03:07 2009 From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM (Dalibor Topic) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:03:07 +0200 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: References: <4A4C0298.6070405@sun.com> Message-ID: <4A53478B.6090607@sun.com> Kevin Regan wrote: > I'm reading the Classpath exception as meaning that a compiled java .class file that is run with the JRE would otherwise be subject to the GPL, if not for the exception. Is this correct? Does this extend to JNI libraries (that do not reference any OpenJDK code) that are actually linked into the JRE through a dynamic library at runtime? Hi Kevin, I believe that your first question is answered by http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g6 and that the second question is answered by http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g20 http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g21 http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g28 If you need specific legal advice, I am afraid that I can't be of much help there, not being a lawyer myself. cheers, dalibor topic -- ******************************************************************* Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring From galabar at hotmail.com Tue Jul 7 16:17:35 2009 From: galabar at hotmail.com (Kevin Regan) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 11:17:35 -0500 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: <4A53478B.6090607@sun.com> References: <4A4C0298.6070405@sun.com> <4A53478B.6090607@sun.com> Message-ID: Hi Dalibor, Thanks you for the response. I guess you've been instructed to only answer licensing questions by pointing to the FAQ. Looking at the JNI headers in the OpenJDK distribution, they do include the "Classpath exception" text. So, I'm going to assume that JNI applications do not fall under the GPL. Is this correct? Just kidding -- you don't need to answer that. ;-) Thanks again, Kevin > Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:03:07 +0200 > From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM > Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing > To: galabar at hotmail.com > CC: discuss at openjdk.java.net > > Kevin Regan wrote: > > I'm reading the Classpath exception as meaning that a compiled java .class file that is run with the JRE would otherwise be subject to the GPL, if not for the exception. Is this correct? Does this extend to JNI libraries (that do not reference any OpenJDK code) that are actually linked into the JRE through a dynamic library at runtime? > > Hi Kevin, > > I believe that your first question is answered by > http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g6 > > and that the second question is answered by > http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g20 > http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g21 > http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g28 > > If you need specific legal advice, I am afraid that I > can't be of much help there, not being a lawyer myself. > > cheers, > dalibor topic > -- > ******************************************************************* > Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 > Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim > Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 > Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net > D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten > Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring > > _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009 From volker.simonis at gmail.com Tue Jul 7 17:04:29 2009 From: volker.simonis at gmail.com (Volker Simonis) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:04:29 +0200 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: <4A53478B.6090607@sun.com> References: <4A4C0298.6070405@sun.com> <4A53478B.6090607@sun.com> Message-ID: Hi, I've read the mentioned several times in the past and I reread them from time to time, just because they are like a good book - you always find something new in there, most of the time you even think you never read them before:) But seriously, I always found it quite strange the the HotSpot VM, which in the end is one monolithic shared library (libjvm.{so,dll}) is build from files with different licenses. And in the FAQ, linking an application to the VM is interpreted in the sense of the include files which are used in order to compile the application. In this special case, if I understood the thread right, Kevin builds a commercial application which includes "jni.h" at compile time. That's ok, because "jni.h" has the classpath exception. But in the end (i.e. at runtime) he dynamically loads the HotSpot (by calling JNI_CreateJavaVM) or the VM calls his application by menas of JNI and in my eyes, that's not ok, because the HotSpot VM (i.e. libjvm.{so,dll}) is mostly build from files which are pure GPL. It may be the case, that until now, nobody really cared about this, but from my point of view, that's a clear violation of the GPL, because the FSF is very clear about the fact that linking a dynamic library constitutes a "derived work" in the GPL sense (see for example http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF). So either the whole HotSpot must have the classpath exception, or linking a non-GPL program against will violate the GPL. Regards, Volker On 7/7/09, Dalibor Topic wrote: > Kevin Regan wrote: > > I'm reading the Classpath exception as meaning that a compiled java .class file that is run with the JRE would otherwise be subject to the GPL, if not for the exception. Is this correct? Does this extend to JNI libraries (that do not reference any OpenJDK code) that are actually linked into the JRE through a dynamic library at runtime? > > > Hi Kevin, > > I believe that your first question is answered by > http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g6 > > and that the second question is answered by > http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g20 > http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g21 > http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g28 > > If you need specific legal advice, I am afraid that I > can't be of much help there, not being a lawyer myself. > > > cheers, > dalibor topic > -- > ******************************************************************* > Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 > Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim > Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 > Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net > D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten > Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring > > > From galabar at hotmail.com Tue Jul 7 17:18:46 2009 From: galabar at hotmail.com (Kevin Regan) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 12:18:46 -0500 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: References: <4A4C0298.6070405@sun.com> <4A53478B.6090607@sun.com> Message-ID: Hi Volker, Thanks for the reply. You bring up valid concerns. It would be great if Sun could give some specific examples in the FAQ to allay our fears. For example, they might look at three applications: A) Pure Java .class files B) JNI Application C) Application that extends the JRE functionality by linking with non-Classpath exception files in the JRE itself Each application could be shown and explained in terms of how it interacts with the OpenJDK license. I understand that ambiguity is great for selling more commercial licenses. However, I doubt that it Sun's goal here, and a few example could help tremendously. --Kevin > Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:04:29 +0200 > Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing > From: volker.simonis at gmail.com > To: Dalibor.Topic at sun.com > CC: galabar at hotmail.com; discuss at openjdk.java.net > > Hi, > > I've read the mentioned several times in the past and I reread them > from time to time, just because they are like a good book - you always > find something new in there, most of the time you even think you never > read them before:) > > But seriously, I always found it quite strange the the HotSpot VM, > which in the end is one monolithic shared library (libjvm.{so,dll}) is > build from files with different licenses. And in the FAQ, linking an > application to the VM is interpreted in the sense of the include files > which are used in order to compile the application. > > In this special case, if I understood the thread right, Kevin builds a > commercial application which includes "jni.h" at compile time. That's > ok, because "jni.h" has the classpath exception. But in the end (i.e. > at runtime) he dynamically loads the HotSpot (by calling > JNI_CreateJavaVM) or the VM calls his application by menas of JNI and > in my eyes, that's not ok, because the HotSpot VM (i.e. > libjvm.{so,dll}) is mostly build from files which are pure GPL. > > It may be the case, that until now, nobody really cared about this, > but from my point of view, that's a clear violation of the GPL, > because the FSF is very clear about the fact that linking a dynamic > library constitutes a "derived work" in the GPL sense (see for example > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF). So either > the whole HotSpot must have the classpath exception, or linking a > non-GPL program against will violate the GPL. > > Regards, > Volker > > On 7/7/09, Dalibor Topic wrote: > > Kevin Regan wrote: > > > I'm reading the Classpath exception as meaning that a compiled java .class file that is run with the JRE would otherwise be subject to the GPL, if not for the exception. Is this correct? Does this extend to JNI libraries (that do not reference any OpenJDK code) that are actually linked into the JRE through a dynamic library at runtime? > > > > > > Hi Kevin, > > > > I believe that your first question is answered by > > http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g6 > > > > and that the second question is answered by > > http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g20 > > http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g21 > > http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g28 > > > > If you need specific legal advice, I am afraid that I > > can't be of much help there, not being a lawyer myself. > > > > > > cheers, > > dalibor topic > > -- > > ******************************************************************* > > Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 > > Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim > > Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 > > Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net > > D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten > > Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 > > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel > > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail?. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009 From Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM Tue Jul 7 21:16:50 2009 From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM (Dalibor Topic) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:16:50 +0200 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: References: <4A4C0298.6070405@sun.com> <4A53478B.6090607@sun.com> Message-ID: <4A53BB42.4010706@sun.com> Kevin Regan wrote: > It would be great if Sun could give some specific examples in the FAQ to allay our fears. It does, actually: http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g33 There are plenty of examples in the demo and samples sections of the OpenJDK source code covering all kinds of use scenarios, with or without JNI. What the FAQ can't do is to provide an answer for any arbitrary scenario someone comes up with - as human imagination knows few boundaries, that's ultimately what professional legal advice is for. You won't find it here, though, in case that's not been obvious from all the replies so far - this is a mailing list for developers. What the FAQ also can't do is to explain the basics of the GPL, software licensing, etc - there are plenty of resources that can explain the mechanics of all that, in particular there are legal professionals who can offer such advice where necessary. As you'd expect, that's all mentioned in the FAQ, too: http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g20 Finally, my answers are linking to the FAQ because it saves me the effort to type paragraphs like this one that point out the obvious.[1] ;) cheers, dalibor topic [1] I wrestled with myself for a bit trying to figure out whether to include this joke paragraph or not - but given that it's late in the evening over here in Germany, I'll pat myself on the back for managing to sneak in a self-referential paragraph into the discussion ;) It'd be cool if replies to this post were haikus - licensing discussions tend to produce boring prose without some concentrated effort to make them fun. -- ******************************************************************* Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring From galabar at hotmail.com Tue Jul 7 22:44:32 2009 From: galabar at hotmail.com (Kevin Regan) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:44:32 -0500 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: <4A53BB42.4010706@sun.com> References: <4A4C0298.6070405@sun.com> <4A53478B.6090607@sun.com> <4A53BB42.4010706@sun.com> Message-ID: I'm not asking licensing issues about demo or sample code. I'm asking for samples explaining how the license applies to JNI and pure Java applications. This certainly is not a flight of human imagination. Most developers are going to want to know (a) if their pure Java class files fall under the GPL and (b) if their JNI code falls under the GPL. I might agree if we took it further than that. There is no need for lawyers here. You know the answer to this and can provide it directly. I think it is telling that you have yet to say that "yes, JNI code falls under the Classpath exception and does not become subject to the GPL." We could have avoided many emails if this was your original response (along with a link to the FAQ). Maybe we could end this discussion with you agreeing to the quoted portion above? :-) --Kevin > Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 23:16:50 +0200 > From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM > Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing > To: galabar at hotmail.com > CC: volker.simonis at gmail.com; discuss at openjdk.java.net > > Kevin Regan wrote: > > It would be great if Sun could give some specific examples in the FAQ to allay our fears. > > It does, actually: http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g33 > There are plenty of examples in the demo and samples sections of the OpenJDK > source code covering all kinds of use scenarios, with or without JNI. > > What the FAQ can't do is to provide an answer for any arbitrary scenario > someone comes up with - as human imagination knows few boundaries, that's > ultimately what professional legal advice is for. You won't find it here, > though, in case that's not been obvious from all the replies so far - this > is a mailing list for developers. > > What the FAQ also can't do is to explain the basics of the GPL, software > licensing, etc - there are plenty of resources that can explain the > mechanics of all that, in particular there are legal professionals who > can offer such advice where necessary. As you'd expect, that's all mentioned > in the FAQ, too: http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g20 > > Finally, my answers are linking to the FAQ because it saves me the effort > to type paragraphs like this one that point out the obvious.[1] ;) > > cheers, > dalibor topic > > [1] I wrestled with myself for a bit trying to figure out whether to include > this joke paragraph or not - but given that it's late in the evening over here > in Germany, I'll pat myself on the back for managing to sneak in a > self-referential paragraph into the discussion ;) > > It'd be cool if replies to this post were haikus - licensing discussions tend > to produce boring prose without some concentrated effort to make them fun. > -- > ******************************************************************* > Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 > Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim > Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 > Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net > D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten > Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring > > _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Get 25 GB of free online storage. http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009 From Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM Tue Jul 7 23:58:03 2009 From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM (Dalibor Topic) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:58:03 +0200 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: References: <4A4C0298.6070405@sun.com> <4A53478B.6090607@sun.com> <4A53BB42.4010706@sun.com> Message-ID: <4A53E10B.5020307@sun.com> Kevin Regan wrote: > I'm asking for samples explaining how the license applies to JNI and pure Java applications. Let me quote from the FAQ I referred to in the mail you're just replying to: "Q: Are there any other licenses used in the OpenJDK code base besides the ones you've already described? A: Yes. The demo and sample code modules are released under the BSD license. These code elements are intended to be very widely distributed, freely modified and used. Accordingly, we've chosen the BSD license as most appropriate for these uses. *Because these components are not part of the JDK but rather are application programs, they need not be under the GPL license because of the Classpath exception.*"[emphasis mine] You can find the samples you're looking for (both pure Java applications, and those using JNI) in the folders containing BSD licensed demo and sample application programs. I can only assume that the issues you're having with the FAQ are based on an assumption that using or not using JNI makes a major difference in terms of the effect of the license, so I'd kindly suggest reading the license terms, and/or the FAQ and/or asking a legal professional for advice. cheers, dalibor topic -- ******************************************************************* Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring From galabar at hotmail.com Wed Jul 8 00:08:37 2009 From: galabar at hotmail.com (Kevin Regan) Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:08:37 -0500 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: <4A53E10B.5020307@sun.com> References: <4A4C0298.6070405@sun.com> <4A53478B.6090607@sun.com> <4A53BB42.4010706@sun.com> <4A53E10B.5020307@sun.com> Message-ID: So, let me get this straight. I need to first understand the Classpath exception, then find this entry in the FAQ about alternate licenses (that I otherwise would not be looking for), track down these demo applications, notice that at least one of them is JNI, and then assume from the wording of "Because these components are not part of the JDK but rather are application programs, they need not be under the GPL license because of the Classpath exception" that my JNI applications are also not encumbered by the GPL? You are absolutely serious in putting forth that this is sufficient for most developers to answer this question (are JNI applications subject to the GPL)? You are stating that most developers will come to the FAQ and easily track down this information? So, clearly, from following this procedure, we've surmised JNI applications are not subject to the GPL, correct? --Kevin > Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 01:58:03 +0200 > From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM > Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing > To: galabar at hotmail.com > CC: discuss at openjdk.java.net > > Kevin Regan wrote: > > I'm asking for samples explaining how the license applies to JNI and pure Java applications. > > Let me quote from the FAQ I referred to in the mail you're just replying to: > > "Q: > Are there any other licenses used in the OpenJDK code base besides the ones you've already described? > A: > Yes. The demo and sample code modules are released under the BSD license. These code elements are intended to be very widely distributed, freely modified and used. Accordingly, we've chosen the BSD license as most appropriate for these uses. *Because these components are not part of the JDK but rather are application programs, they need not be under the GPL license because of the Classpath exception.*"[emphasis mine] > > You can find the samples you're looking for (both pure Java applications, and those using JNI) in the folders containing BSD licensed demo and sample application programs. > > I can only assume that the issues you're having with the FAQ are based on an assumption that using or not using JNI makes a major difference in terms of the effect of the license, so I'd kindly suggest reading the license terms, and/or the FAQ and/or asking a legal professional for advice. > > cheers, > dalibor topic > -- > ******************************************************************* > Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 > Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim > Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 > Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net > D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten > Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring > > _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009 From volker.simonis at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 08:47:44 2009 From: volker.simonis at gmail.com (Volker Simonis) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 10:47:44 +0200 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: References: <4A53478B.6090607@sun.com> <4A53BB42.4010706@sun.com> <4A53E10B.5020307@sun.com> Message-ID: My only point was that I don't think that Sun's interpretation of "linking", "derived work" and "classpath exception" is in accordance with the FSF view of these terms, especially in the case of the HotSpot shared library which is build from files licensed under both "pure" GPL and GPL plus classpath exception. I don't even understand how the HotSpot shared library itself can be build in accordance to the FSF rules, because it obviously contains statically linked files with two different licenses, one of them beeing the GPL! But I may be wrong here as I'm not a lawyer... On 7/8/09, Kevin Regan wrote: > > > So, let me get this straight. I need to first understand the Classpath exception, then find this entry in the FAQ about alternate licenses (that I otherwise would not be looking for), track down these demo applications, notice that at least one of them is JNI, and then assume from the wording of "Because these components are not part of the JDK but rather are > > application programs, they need not be under the GPL license because of > > the Classpath exception" that my JNI applications are also not encumbered by the GPL? > > You are absolutely serious in putting forth that this is sufficient for most developers to answer this question (are JNI applications subject to the GPL)? You are stating that most developers will come to the FAQ and easily track down this information? > > So, clearly, from following this procedure, we've surmised JNI applications are not subject to the GPL, correct? > > --Kevin > > > Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 01:58:03 +0200 > > > From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM > > Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing > > To: galabar at hotmail.com > > > CC: discuss at openjdk.java.net > > > > > Kevin Regan wrote: > > > I'm asking for samples explaining how the license applies to JNI and pure Java applications. > > > > Let me quote from the FAQ I referred to in the mail you're just replying to: > > > > "Q: > > Are there any other licenses used in the OpenJDK code base besides the ones you've already described? > > A: > > Yes. The demo and sample code modules are released under the BSD license. These code elements are intended to be very widely distributed, freely modified and used. Accordingly, we've chosen the BSD license as most appropriate for these uses. *Because these components are not part of the JDK but rather are application programs, they need not be under the GPL license because of the Classpath exception.*"[emphasis mine] > > > > You can find the samples you're looking for (both pure Java applications, and those using JNI) in the folders containing BSD licensed demo and sample application programs. > > > > I can only assume that the issues you're having with the FAQ are based on an assumption that using or not using JNI makes a major difference in terms of the effect of the license, so I'd kindly suggest reading the license terms, and/or the FAQ and/or asking a legal professional for advice. > > > > cheers, > > dalibor topic > > -- > > ******************************************************************* > > Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 > > Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim > > Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 > > Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net > > D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten > > Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 > > Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel > > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. > http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009 From fweimer at bfk.de Wed Jul 8 09:05:44 2009 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:05:44 +0000 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: (Volker Simonis's message of "Wed\, 8 Jul 2009 10\:47\:44 +0200") References: <4A53478B.6090607@sun.com> <4A53BB42.4010706@sun.com> <4A53E10B.5020307@sun.com> Message-ID: <82k52j5ytz.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Volker Simonis: > My only point was that I don't think that Sun's interpretation of > "linking", "derived work" and "classpath exception" is in accordance > with the FSF view of these terms, especially in the case of the > HotSpot shared library which is build from files licensed under both > "pure" GPL and GPL plus classpath exception. There are two conflicting lines of thoughts regarding GPLed program loaders: The first one says that loaded programs are not subject to the loader's GPL license. This is the stance taken by the Linux folks for their kernel. The second one says that the loaded program has to be GPLed as well. This one is sometimes cited in the Emacs Lisp context (meaning that anything which runs on Emacs has to be GPLed). So it's certainly a good idea for the copyright owners of such program loaders to clarify their position on this topic. -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From geir at pobox.com Wed Jul 8 09:34:39 2009 From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 05:34:39 -0400 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: References: <4A4C0298.6070405@sun.com> <4A53478B.6090607@sun.com> <4A53BB42.4010706@sun.com> <4A53E10B.5020307@sun.com> Message-ID: <42B32152-042B-4AA8-AC8F-640A3F168541@pobox.com> I strikes me that the best thing for everyone is a FAQ entry from Sun : "Q: Does the classpath exception apply to JNI applications running on OpenJDK?" with the answer "A: Yes" or "A: No" depending on Sun's official stance on the matter. Seems like an easy thing for Sun to provide. geir On Jul 7, 2009, at 8:08 PM, Kevin Regan wrote: > > > So, let me get this straight. I need to first understand the > Classpath exception, then find this entry in the FAQ about alternate > licenses (that I otherwise would not be looking for), track down > these demo applications, notice that at least one of them is JNI, > and then assume from the wording of "Because these components are > not part of the JDK but rather are > application programs, they need not be under the GPL license because > of > the Classpath exception" that my JNI applications are also not > encumbered by the GPL? > > You are absolutely serious in putting forth that this is sufficient > for most developers to answer this question (are JNI applications > subject to the GPL)? You are stating that most developers will come > to the FAQ and easily track down this information? > > So, clearly, from following this procedure, we've surmised JNI > applications are not subject to the GPL, correct? > > --Kevin > >> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 01:58:03 +0200 >> From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM >> Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing >> To: galabar at hotmail.com >> CC: discuss at openjdk.java.net >> >> Kevin Regan wrote: >>> I'm asking for samples explaining how the license applies to JNI >>> and pure Java applications. >> >> Let me quote from the FAQ I referred to in the mail you're just >> replying to: >> >> "Q: >> Are there any other licenses used in the OpenJDK code base besides >> the ones you've already described? >> A: >> Yes. The demo and sample code modules are released under the BSD >> license. These code elements are intended to be very widely >> distributed, freely modified and used. Accordingly, we've chosen >> the BSD license as most appropriate for these uses. *Because these >> components are not part of the JDK but rather are application >> programs, they need not be under the GPL license because of the >> Classpath exception.*"[emphasis mine] >> >> You can find the samples you're looking for (both pure Java >> applications, and those using JNI) in the folders containing BSD >> licensed demo and sample application programs. >> >> I can only assume that the issues you're having with the FAQ are >> based on an assumption that using or not using JNI makes a major >> difference in terms of the effect of the license, so I'd kindly >> suggest reading the license terms, and/or the FAQ and/or asking a >> legal professional for advice. >> >> cheers, >> dalibor topic >> -- >> ******************************************************************* >> Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 >> Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim >> Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 >> Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net >> D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com >> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten >> Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 >> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel >> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring >> >> > > _________________________________________________________________ > Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. > http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009 From volker.simonis at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 10:33:48 2009 From: volker.simonis at gmail.com (Volker Simonis) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 12:33:48 +0200 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: <82k52j5ytz.fsf@mid.bfk.de> References: <4A53478B.6090607@sun.com> <4A53BB42.4010706@sun.com> <4A53E10B.5020307@sun.com> <82k52j5ytz.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Message-ID: Yes, I understand that conflict. But the HotSpot library libjvm.so itself is build mostly from files which are pure GPL and some files (in particular "jni.h") which are GPL + class path exception). So how can "jni.cpp" (which is GPL only) include "jni.h" (which is GPL + class path) and finally be statically linked with other GPL only files into a GPL-only "libjvm.so"??? On 7/8/09, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Volker Simonis: > > > > My only point was that I don't think that Sun's interpretation of > > "linking", "derived work" and "classpath exception" is in accordance > > with the FSF view of these terms, especially in the case of the > > HotSpot shared library which is build from files licensed under both > > "pure" GPL and GPL plus classpath exception. > > > There are two conflicting lines of thoughts regarding GPLed program > loaders: The first one says that loaded programs are not subject to > the loader's GPL license. This is the stance taken by the Linux folks > for their kernel. The second one says that the loaded program has to > be GPLed as well. This one is sometimes cited in the Emacs Lisp > context (meaning that anything which runs on Emacs has to be GPLed). > > So it's certainly a good idea for the copyright owners of such program > loaders to clarify their position on this topic. > > > -- > Florian Weimer > BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ > Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 > D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 > From aph at redhat.com Wed Jul 8 10:44:08 2009 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:44:08 +0100 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: References: <4A53478B.6090607@sun.com> <4A53BB42.4010706@sun.com> <4A53E10B.5020307@sun.com> <82k52j5ytz.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Message-ID: <4A547878.9040309@redhat.com> Volker Simonis wrote: > Yes, I understand that conflict. But the HotSpot library libjvm.so > itself is build mostly from files which are pure GPL and some files > (in particular "jni.h") which are GPL + class path exception). > > So how can "jni.cpp" (which is GPL only) include "jni.h" (which is GPL > + class path) and finally be statically linked with other GPL only > files into a GPL-only "libjvm.so"??? Why not? GPL'd code can use GPL+exception code. What makes you think otherwise? Andrew. From fweimer at bfk.de Wed Jul 8 10:53:22 2009 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:53:22 +0000 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: <4A547878.9040309@redhat.com> (Andrew Haley's message of "Wed\, 08 Jul 2009 11\:44\:08 +0100") References: <4A53478B.6090607@sun.com> <4A53BB42.4010706@sun.com> <4A53E10B.5020307@sun.com> <82k52j5ytz.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4A547878.9040309@redhat.com> Message-ID: <82zlbf4fa5.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Andrew Haley: > Volker Simonis wrote: >> Yes, I understand that conflict. But the HotSpot library libjvm.so >> itself is build mostly from files which are pure GPL and some files >> (in particular "jni.h") which are GPL + class path exception). >> >> So how can "jni.cpp" (which is GPL only) include "jni.h" (which is GPL >> + class path) and finally be statically linked with other GPL only >> files into a GPL-only "libjvm.so"??? > > Why not? GPL'd code can use GPL+exception code. What makes you > think otherwise? It fails the common sense check. If GPL+exception code relies on GPL-only code for execution, the code isn't GPL+exception, really, but rather GPL-only. (IIRC, OpenJDK also contains some Apache 2.0 code, so there is a licensing inconsistency there. It's not just that the end result isn't GPL-only instead of GPL+exception.) -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From volker.simonis at gmail.com Wed Jul 8 10:53:45 2009 From: volker.simonis at gmail.com (Volker Simonis) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 12:53:45 +0200 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: <4A547878.9040309@redhat.com> References: <4A53BB42.4010706@sun.com> <4A53E10B.5020307@sun.com> <82k52j5ytz.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4A547878.9040309@redhat.com> Message-ID: I thought, GPL'd code can only use GPL'd code. Otherwise I could always write a wrapper which is GPL+exception in order to use any kind of code together with GPL'd code by means of that wrapper. On 7/8/09, Andrew Haley wrote: > Volker Simonis wrote: > > Yes, I understand that conflict. But the HotSpot library libjvm.so > > itself is build mostly from files which are pure GPL and some files > > (in particular "jni.h") which are GPL + class path exception). > > > > So how can "jni.cpp" (which is GPL only) include "jni.h" (which is GPL > > + class path) and finally be statically linked with other GPL only > > files into a GPL-only "libjvm.so"??? > > > Why not? GPL'd code can use GPL+exception code. What makes you > think otherwise? > > > Andrew. > From galabar at hotmail.com Wed Jul 8 16:50:48 2009 From: galabar at hotmail.com (Kevin Regan) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 11:50:48 -0500 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: <42B32152-042B-4AA8-AC8F-640A3F168541@pobox.com> References: <4A4C0298.6070405@sun.com> <4A53478B.6090607@sun.com> <4A53BB42.4010706@sun.com> <4A53E10B.5020307@sun.com> <42B32152-042B-4AA8-AC8F-640A3F168541@pobox.com> Message-ID: Yes, this would most certainly be very helpful. Sun, what do you think? --Kevin > CC: dalibor.topic at sun.com; discuss at openjdk.java.net > From: geir at pobox.com > To: galabar at hotmail.com > Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing > Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 05:34:39 -0400 > > I strikes me that the best thing for everyone is a FAQ entry from Sun : > > "Q: Does the classpath exception apply to JNI applications running on > OpenJDK?" > > with the answer > > "A: Yes" > > or > > "A: No" > > depending on Sun's official stance on the matter. > > Seems like an easy thing for Sun to provide. > > geir > > > On Jul 7, 2009, at 8:08 PM, Kevin Regan wrote: > > > > > > > So, let me get this straight. I need to first understand the > > Classpath exception, then find this entry in the FAQ about alternate > > licenses (that I otherwise would not be looking for), track down > > these demo applications, notice that at least one of them is JNI, > > and then assume from the wording of "Because these components are > > not part of the JDK but rather are > > application programs, they need not be under the GPL license because > > of > > the Classpath exception" that my JNI applications are also not > > encumbered by the GPL? > > > > You are absolutely serious in putting forth that this is sufficient > > for most developers to answer this question (are JNI applications > > subject to the GPL)? You are stating that most developers will come > > to the FAQ and easily track down this information? > > > > So, clearly, from following this procedure, we've surmised JNI > > applications are not subject to the GPL, correct? > > > > --Kevin > > > >> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 01:58:03 +0200 > >> From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM > >> Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing > >> To: galabar at hotmail.com > >> CC: discuss at openjdk.java.net > >> > >> Kevin Regan wrote: > >>> I'm asking for samples explaining how the license applies to JNI > >>> and pure Java applications. > >> > >> Let me quote from the FAQ I referred to in the mail you're just > >> replying to: > >> > >> "Q: > >> Are there any other licenses used in the OpenJDK code base besides > >> the ones you've already described? > >> A: > >> Yes. The demo and sample code modules are released under the BSD > >> license. These code elements are intended to be very widely > >> distributed, freely modified and used. Accordingly, we've chosen > >> the BSD license as most appropriate for these uses. *Because these > >> components are not part of the JDK but rather are application > >> programs, they need not be under the GPL license because of the > >> Classpath exception.*"[emphasis mine] > >> > >> You can find the samples you're looking for (both pure Java > >> applications, and those using JNI) in the folders containing BSD > >> licensed demo and sample application programs. > >> > >> I can only assume that the issues you're having with the FAQ are > >> based on an assumption that using or not using JNI makes a major > >> difference in terms of the effect of the license, so I'd kindly > >> suggest reading the license terms, and/or the FAQ and/or asking a > >> legal professional for advice. > >> > >> cheers, > >> dalibor topic > >> -- > >> ******************************************************************* > >> Dalibor Topic Tel: (+49 40) 23 646 738 > >> Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim > >> Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 177) 2664 192 > >> Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net > >> D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic at sun.com > >> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten > >> Amtsgericht M?nchen: HRB 161028 > >> Gesch?ftsf?hrer: Thomas Schr?der, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel > >> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin H?ring > >> > >> > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync. > > http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009 > _________________________________________________________________ Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that?s right for you. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/choosepc/?ocid=ftp_val_wl_290 From galabar at hotmail.com Wed Jul 8 16:55:44 2009 From: galabar at hotmail.com (Kevin Regan) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 11:55:44 -0500 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: References: <4A53BB42.4010706@sun.com> <4A53E10B.5020307@sun.com> <82k52j5ytz.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <4A547878.9040309@redhat.com> Message-ID: I think the bottom line is that there is some confusion as to exactly what the OpenJDK license means. This would definitely point to the need for Sun to add some clarifications and examples to the FAQ. The previously suggested FAQ item on JNI would be a good start. --Kevin > Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 12:53:45 +0200 > Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing > From: volker.simonis at gmail.com > To: aph at redhat.com > CC: discuss at openjdk.java.net; dalibor.topic at sun.com > > I thought, GPL'd code can only use GPL'd code. Otherwise I could > always write a wrapper which is GPL+exception in order to use any kind > of code together with GPL'd code by means of that wrapper. > > On 7/8/09, Andrew Haley wrote: > > Volker Simonis wrote: > > > Yes, I understand that conflict. But the HotSpot library libjvm.so > > > itself is build mostly from files which are pure GPL and some files > > > (in particular "jni.h") which are GPL + class path exception). > > > > > > So how can "jni.cpp" (which is GPL only) include "jni.h" (which is GPL > > > + class path) and finally be statically linked with other GPL only > > > files into a GPL-only "libjvm.so"??? > > > > > > Why not? GPL'd code can use GPL+exception code. What makes you > > think otherwise? > > > > > > Andrew. > > _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live? SkyDrive?: Get 25 GB of free online storage. http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009 From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Tue Jul 14 00:21:35 2009 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:21:35 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 64 is available at the openjdk.java.net website Message-ID: <4A5BCF8F.7080806@sun.com> The OpenJDK source is available at: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/269c1ec4435d The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 64 are available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) Summary of changes: http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b64.html -Xiomara From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Tue Jul 14 13:31:20 2009 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:31:20 +0100 Subject: JDK 7 build 64 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <4A5BCF8F.7080806@sun.com> References: <4A5BCF8F.7080806@sun.com> Message-ID: <17c6771e0907140631m5bc5c93bofc1ebe200fd1dd54@mail.gmail.com> 2009/7/14 Xiomara Jayasena : > > The OpenJDK source is available at: > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/269c1ec4435d > > The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 64 are > available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source > Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) > > Summary of changes: > http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b64.html > > > -Xiomara > > > The bug 6797688: Umbrella: Merge all JDK 6u4 - 6u12 deployment code into JDK7 seems a little odd. Should all these sub-bugs really be tagged as being included in OpenJDK, given they refer to the webstart and plugin code? Thanks, -- Andrew :-) Free Java Software Engineer Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com) Support Free Java! Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath http://openjdk.java.net PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 From Phil.Race at Sun.COM Tue Jul 14 18:14:06 2009 From: Phil.Race at Sun.COM (Phil Race) Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:14:06 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 64 is available at the openjdk.java.net website In-Reply-To: <17c6771e0907140631m5bc5c93bofc1ebe200fd1dd54@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A5BCF8F.7080806@sun.com> <17c6771e0907140631m5bc5c93bofc1ebe200fd1dd54@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A5CCAEE.4020204@sun.com> I agree it would have been better to have the changeset comment for the open code repos only cite bug ids relevant to changes in those repos. Instead the same list was used for all repos .. even corba. But it didn't seem worth derailing this work to resolve that, but I asked the deployment team to note that for future work. -phil. Andrew John Hughes wrote: > 2009/7/14 Xiomara Jayasena : >> The OpenJDK source is available at: >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 >> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/269c1ec4435d >> >> The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 64 are >> available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source >> Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) >> >> Summary of changes: >> http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b64.html >> >> >> -Xiomara >> >> >> > > The bug 6797688: Umbrella: Merge all JDK 6u4 - 6u12 deployment code > into JDK7 seems a little odd. Should all these sub-bugs really be > tagged as being included in OpenJDK, given they refer to the webstart > and plugin code? > > Thanks, From Eamonn.McManus at Sun.COM Wed Jul 15 13:27:40 2009 From: Eamonn.McManus at Sun.COM (Eamonn McManus) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:27:40 +0200 Subject: jmx-dev CFV: Project sponsorship: JMX2 In-Reply-To: <4A5D99E0.2000007@sun.com> References: <4A5D99E0.2000007@sun.com> Message-ID: <4A5DD94C.3070808@sun.com> In message http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/jmx-dev/2009-July/000050.html I wrote: > Should the JMX Group sponsor the proposed JMX2 Project? 5 of the 8 Members eligible to vote have now voted Yes: Jean-Fran?ois Denise, Daniel Fuchs, Yves Joan, Sandra Lions, ?amonn McManus. Since that constitutes an absolute majority, I have the pleasure as the Group's Moderator of announcing that the JMX Group has decided to sponsor the JMX2 Project. Regards, ?amonn McManus ? JMX Spec Lead ? http://weblogs.java.net/blog/emcmanus/ Eamonn McManus wrote: > This is a Call For Votes (CFV) on the following question: > > Should the JMX Group sponsor the proposed JMX2 Project [1]? > > Please cast your vote by replying, publicly, to this message with either > > Vote: yes > > or > > Vote: no > > as the first line of the message body. > > You may, at your option, indicate the reason for your decision on > subsequent lines. > > Votes must be cast in the open; votes sent as private replies will not > be counted. > > The sponsorship decision will be made by a simple majority vote of the > Group's Members. > Votes are due by midnight UTC next Wednesday, July 22nd. > As an optimization, if an absolute majority of the Group's Members votes > one way or the other prior to that time then the decision may be > rendered earlier. > > Only Members of the JMX Group are eligible to vote on this decision. > The current Members are: > > Luis-Miguel Alventosa > Jean-Fran?ois Denise > Jo?l F?raud > Daniel Fuchs > Shanliang Jiang > Yves Joan > Sandra Lions > ?amonn McManus > > Once a decision has been made, the votes will be summarized and report > to this list > and also to discuss at openjdk.java.net. > > [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2009-July/000080.html From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Fri Jul 17 00:20:47 2009 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:20:47 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 65 is available at the openjdk.java.net website Message-ID: <4A5FC3DF.2050608@sun.com> The OpenJDK source is available at: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/e01380cd1de4 The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 65 are available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) Summary of changes: http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b65.html -Xiomara From martinrb at google.com Mon Jul 20 05:22:26 2009 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 22:22:26 -0700 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: <82k52j5ytz.fsf@mid.bfk.de> References: <4A53478B.6090607@sun.com> <4A53BB42.4010706@sun.com> <4A53E10B.5020307@sun.com> <82k52j5ytz.fsf@mid.bfk.de> Message-ID: <1ccfd1c10907192222x7c9b0ef6ud426b7132d7f9b27@mail.gmail.com> One fundamental queston is when something becomes a "derived work". The FSF has been known to strongly suggest that linking two pieces of software creates a derived work, but the FSF cannot decide that. I imagine some lawyer at Sun thought as follows: Whether an API is a published standard influences whether or not a client of that API is considered a separate work or not. Most (but not all) of the interfaces to hotspot are specified by a JCP standard (and that includes jni), and this standard has multiple implementations, so it is reasonable to presume that linking with hotspot is not creating a separate program, when not using the non-standard interfaces (like sun.misc.Unsafe). One can further presume that one can use any interfaces for which the interface specification file (e.g. a C header file) has the Classpath exception. In any case, it would be good for Sun to clarify its position. In particular, engineers need to understand the policy when creating a new source file. Martin On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 02:05, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Volker Simonis: > >> My only point was that I don't think that Sun's interpretation of >> "linking", "derived work" and "classpath exception" is in accordance >> with the FSF view of these terms, especially in the case of the >> HotSpot shared library which is build from files licensed under both >> "pure" GPL and GPL plus classpath exception. > > There are two conflicting lines of thoughts regarding GPLed program > loaders: The first one says that loaded programs are not subject to > the loader's GPL license. ?This is the stance taken by the Linux folks > for their kernel. ?The second one says that the loaded program has to > be GPLed as well. ?This one is sometimes cited in the Emacs Lisp > context (meaning that anything which runs on Emacs has to be GPLed). > > So it's certainly a good idea for the copyright owners of such program > loaders to clarify their position on this topic. > > -- > Florian Weimer ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? > BFK edv-consulting GmbH ? ? ? http://www.bfk.de/ > Kriegsstra?e 100 ? ? ? ? ? ? ?tel: +49-721-96201-1 > D-76133 Karlsruhe ? ? ? ? ? ? fax: +49-721-96201-99 > From fweimer at bfk.de Mon Jul 20 08:44:44 2009 From: fweimer at bfk.de (Florian Weimer) Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:44:44 +0000 Subject: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing In-Reply-To: <1ccfd1c10907192222x7c9b0ef6ud426b7132d7f9b27@mail.gmail.com> (Martin Buchholz's message of "Sun\, 19 Jul 2009 22\:22\:26 -0700") References: <4A53478B.6090607@sun.com> <4A53BB42.4010706@sun.com> <4A53E10B.5020307@sun.com> <82k52j5ytz.fsf@mid.bfk.de> <1ccfd1c10907192222x7c9b0ef6ud426b7132d7f9b27@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <82fxcroi9v.fsf@mid.bfk.de> * Martin Buchholz: > Whether an API is a published standard influences whether or not a > client of that API is considered a separate work or not. Most (but > not all) of the interfaces to hotspot are specified by a JCP > standard (and that includes jni), The publicly available JCP license does not permit deployment, only development for evaluation purposes. Things are even more complicated if the API contains service loaders. For instance, I think it's Sun's intention that you aren't allowed to write a JDBC driver and distribute it (without further restrictions) if you've obtained the JDBC API spec from the jcp.org site. So it's not clear to me if you can infer additional rights from the existence of the JCP process. Apparently, it was Sun's intent that the main source for Java technology licensing was the JDK distribution, and not the JCPs themselves. > In any case, it would be good for Sun to clarify its position. > In particular, engineers need to understand the policy > when creating a new source file. Right, especially since OpenJDK contains code which licensed under the Apache 2.0 license (which is generally thought to be incompatible with the GPL version 2). -- Florian Weimer BFK edv-consulting GmbH http://www.bfk.de/ Kriegsstra?e 100 tel: +49-721-96201-1 D-76133 Karlsruhe fax: +49-721-96201-99 From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Thu Jul 23 15:58:51 2009 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:58:51 -0700 Subject: Delayed: JDK 7 build 66 promotion Message-ID: <4A6888BB.1070309@sun.com> Hi, Due to some fixes that we would like to include into build 66, we are going to be delaying the build 66 promotion by a day or so. Build 66 will be the final build for Milestone 4. The current build schedule is located here: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk7/builds/ -Xiomara From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Sat Jul 25 02:04:06 2009 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:04:06 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 66 is available at the openjdk.java.net website Message-ID: <4A6A6816.5030707@sun.com> The OpenJDK source is available at: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/6bad5e3fe503 The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 66 are available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) Summary of changes: http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b66.html -Xiomara From Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM Thu Jul 30 23:34:14 2009 From: Xiomara.Jayasena at Sun.COM (Xiomara Jayasena) Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 16:34:14 -0700 Subject: JDK 7 build 67 is available at the openjdk.java.net website Message-ID: <4A722DF6.2070809@sun.com> The OpenJDK source is available at: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/c4523c6f8204 The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 67 are available under the openjdk http://openjdk.java.net website under Source Code (direct link to bundles: http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7) Summary of changes: http://download.java.net/jdk7/changes/jdk7-b67.html -Xiomara