From Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM Fri Jan 8 12:19:47 2010 From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM (Dalibor Topic) Date: Fri, 08 Jan 2010 13:19:47 +0100 Subject: Update on Java DevRoom at FOSDEM? In-Reply-To: <201001081114.31451.thomas@koch.ro> References: <201001081114.31451.thomas@koch.ro> Message-ID: <4B4722E3.1060200@sun.com> Thomas Koch wrote: > Hi, > > could you please give an update on the JavaDev Room schedule at FOSDEM? There > are only a few talk proposal listed at > http://wiki.debian.org/Java/DevJam/2010/FosdemProposedTalks > and I wonder whether the DevRoom will be held at all. Yeah, it will be - we're working on a schedule atm. > I also need to > coordinate my 2 talks so that they won't overlap by incident. Good point, I'll send an e-mail to you and others on the wiki to ask for your preferred times (sat/sun, morning/afternoon) to avoid scheduling conflicts. 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 David.Katleman at Sun.COM Fri Jan 15 02:26:26 2010 From: David.Katleman at Sun.COM (David Katleman) Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:26:26 -0800 Subject: JDK 7 build 79 is available at the openjdk.java.net website Message-ID: <4B4FD252.9050804@Sun.COM> The OpenJDK source is available at: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/b1952d19290d The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 79 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-b79.html -Dave Katleman From Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM Tue Jan 19 18:01:30 2010 From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM (Dalibor Topic) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:01:30 +0100 Subject: fosdem devroom schedule published Message-ID: <4B55F37A.2030906@sun.com> Hi, the schedule for the free Java devroom at FOSDEM is now online. See http://robilad.livejournal.com/59529.html and http://fosdem.org/2010/schedule/tracks/freejava for details. 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 avner.levy at gmail.com Thu Jan 21 07:52:36 2010 From: avner.levy at gmail.com (Avner Levy) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:52:36 +0200 Subject: Licensing questions Message-ID: <7b64f2951001202352s3eddb7edo5d8f033ce6afc6ac@mail.gmail.com> Hi, I would appreciate if someone can point out where is the best place to ask license related questions (commercial usage on embedded platforms) regarding the OpenJDK. Thanks in advance, Avner From marco at mtsystems.ch Thu Jan 21 08:16:42 2010 From: marco at mtsystems.ch (Marco Trudel) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:16:42 +0100 Subject: Older versions Message-ID: <4B580D6A.3020308@mtsystems.ch> Dear all I need to get b26 (24_apr_2008) but it seems only the newest source bundles and plugs can be downloaded from the website (at least I cannot find an archive or alike). So I think hg fclone -r jdk7-b26 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl openjdk gave me the source for the version I want. But how to I get the corresponding binary-plugs (jdk-7-ea-plug-b26-windows-i586-24_apr_2008.jar)? I would vote for keeping old versions online... Thanks and have a nice day Marco From aph at redhat.com Thu Jan 21 09:35:27 2010 From: aph at redhat.com (Andrew Haley) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:35:27 +0000 Subject: Licensing questions In-Reply-To: <7b64f2951001202352s3eddb7edo5d8f033ce6afc6ac@mail.gmail.com> References: <7b64f2951001202352s3eddb7edo5d8f033ce6afc6ac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4B581FDF.9040805@redhat.com> On 01/21/2010 07:52 AM, Avner Levy wrote: > I would appreciate if someone can point out where is the best place to ask > license related questions (commercial usage on embedded platforms) regarding > the OpenJDK. The usual advice with free software is that if you need legal advice, consult a lawyer. Having said that, the rules about GPL and GPL+exception are not all that mystifying unless you're trying to do something borderline. Andrew. From geir at pobox.com Thu Jan 21 11:52:56 2010 From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:52:56 -0500 Subject: Licensing questions In-Reply-To: <4B581FDF.9040805@redhat.com> References: <7b64f2951001202352s3eddb7edo5d8f033ce6afc6ac@mail.gmail.com> <4B581FDF.9040805@redhat.com> Message-ID: This is sage advice. In addition, given the history of Apache Harmony and Open JDK and the motivations behind the Apache-Sun TCK licensing dispute (protect Sun's Java licensing revenue), Mr Levy may discover that his paths lead to Sun's software sales group. OTOH, now that the EU CC has decided to get out of the way, maybe things will be different with ORCL as our corporate overlord :) geir On Jan 21, 2010, at 4:35 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 01/21/2010 07:52 AM, Avner Levy wrote: > >> I would appreciate if someone can point out where is the best place to ask >> license related questions (commercial usage on embedded platforms) regarding >> the OpenJDK. > > The usual advice with free software is that if you need legal advice, > consult a lawyer. Having said that, the rules about GPL and > GPL+exception are not all that mystifying unless you're trying to do > something borderline. > > Andrew. From neugens at limasoftware.net Thu Jan 21 12:24:22 2010 From: neugens at limasoftware.net (Mario Torre) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:24:22 +0100 Subject: Licensing questions In-Reply-To: References: <7b64f2951001202352s3eddb7edo5d8f033ce6afc6ac@mail.gmail.com> <4B581FDF.9040805@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1264076662.2084.3.camel@localhost> Il giorno gio, 21/01/2010 alle 06.52 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. ha scritto: > Mr Levy may discover that his paths lead to Sun's software sales group This is a myth. I never had any problem so far, neither I will have as soon as the fairness of the license is respected (which is, of course, from both sides). Said that, specific needs have to be addressed with the help of a lawyer that knows his job. Cheers, Mario From mark at klomp.org Thu Jan 21 12:26:52 2010 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:26:52 +0100 Subject: Mercurial server down? 500 - Internal Server Error Message-ID: <1264076812.3074.1.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/ gives a 500 - Internal Server Error From geir at pobox.com Thu Jan 21 12:44:00 2010 From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:44:00 -0500 Subject: Licensing questions In-Reply-To: <1264076662.2084.3.camel@localhost> References: <7b64f2951001202352s3eddb7edo5d8f033ce6afc6ac@mail.gmail.com> <4B581FDF.9040805@redhat.com> <1264076662.2084.3.camel@localhost> Message-ID: On Jan 21, 2010, at 7:24 AM, Mario Torre wrote: > Il giorno gio, 21/01/2010 alle 06.52 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. ha > scritto: >> Mr Levy may discover that his paths lead to Sun's software sales group > > This is a myth. It's far from a myth. Sun has been open about the fact that they won't give the ASF a TCK license for Java SE in order to protect licensing revenue. > I never had any problem so far, neither I will have as > soon as the fairness of the license is respected (which is, of course, > from both sides). I'm not suggesting the GPLv2 is a bad license, nor would I suggest that anyone not respect the terms. Sun is using it as a tool to ensure that anyone that needs to make changes or link the non-exception parts to custom code either has to GPL their code, or go to sun for a commercial license. (Why else do you think they need to get joint copyright on any contribution to the project??) Use of the GPL's reciprocity conditions is perfectly legitimate and used by many fine organizations before them (MySQL AB....). That said, have you embedded openJDK into a commercial product? > > Said that, specific needs have to be addressed with the help of a lawyer > that knows his job. > > Cheers, > Mario > From geir at pobox.com Thu Jan 21 12:44:28 2010 From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:44:28 -0500 Subject: Mercurial server down? 500 - Internal Server Error In-Reply-To: <1264076812.3074.1.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> References: <1264076812.3074.1.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: You did see that the EU approved the merger, right? :) geir On Jan 21, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote: > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/ gives a 500 - Internal Server Error > > From mark at klomp.org Thu Jan 21 12:54:33 2010 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:54:33 +0100 Subject: Licensing questions In-Reply-To: <1264076662.2084.3.camel@localhost> References: <7b64f2951001202352s3eddb7edo5d8f033ce6afc6ac@mail.gmail.com> <4B581FDF.9040805@redhat.com> <1264076662.2084.3.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1264078473.3074.8.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 13:24 +0100, Mario Torre wrote: > Il giorno gio, 21/01/2010 alle 06.52 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. ha > scritto: > > Mr Levy may discover that his paths lead to Sun's software sales group > > This is a myth. I never had any problem so far, neither I will have as > soon as the fairness of the license is respected (which is, of course, > from both sides). I agree. And this has always been the case. Even with GNU Classpath and GCJ, which are also distributed under the GPL (+ specific exceptions). As long as the tit-for-tat share-alike nature of the GPL is respected. GNU Classpath and GCJ have been distributed with millions of desktops, servers, embedded devices, TVs, settop-boxes, etc. Likewise is OpenJDK (and the IcedTea derivative) embedded in various commercial GNU/Linux enterprise products, all while respecting the GPL of course, and without any interaction with any Sun sales group. That is precisely what Free Software allows. Cheers, Mark From neugens at limasoftware.net Thu Jan 21 13:00:48 2010 From: neugens at limasoftware.net (Mario Torre) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:00:48 +0100 Subject: Licensing questions In-Reply-To: References: <7b64f2951001202352s3eddb7edo5d8f033ce6afc6ac@mail.gmail.com> <4B581FDF.9040805@redhat.com> <1264076662.2084.3.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1264078848.2084.11.camel@localhost> Il giorno gio, 21/01/2010 alle 07.44 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. ha scritto: > It's far from a myth. Sun has been open about the fact that they won't give the ASF a TCK license for Java SE in order to protect licensing revenue. Usual story as always with you, Geir. Just because you didn't got the TCK, you just divert from OpenJDK licensing to TCK licensing, which is not the topic of the mail and a completely different issue (and I'm not ignoring this, like you probably *may* think or guess, just saying that it's a different topic and a different problem, but especially a different question!). > That said, have you embedded openJDK into a commercial product? What do you think? Cheers, Mario From roman at kennke.org Thu Jan 21 13:13:18 2010 From: roman at kennke.org (Roman Kennke) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:13:18 +0100 Subject: Licensing questions In-Reply-To: References: <7b64f2951001202352s3eddb7edo5d8f033ce6afc6ac@mail.gmail.com> <4B581FDF.9040805@redhat.com> <1264076662.2084.3.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1264079598.2664.5.camel@moonlight> > >> Mr Levy may discover that his paths lead to Sun's software sales group > > > > This is a myth. > > It's far from a myth. Sun has been open about the fact that they won't give the ASF a TCK license for Java SE in order to protect licensing revenue. > > > I never had any problem so far, neither I will have as > > soon as the fairness of the license is respected (which is, of course, > > from both sides). > > I'm not suggesting the GPLv2 is a bad license, nor would I suggest that anyone not respect the terms. > > Sun is using it as a tool to ensure that anyone that needs to make changes or link the non-exception parts to custom code either has to GPL their code, or go to sun for a commercial license. (Why else do you think they need to get joint copyright on any contribution to the project??) Use of the GPL's reciprocity conditions is perfectly legitimate and used by many fine organizations before them (MySQL AB....). > > That said, have you embedded openJDK into a commercial product? TCK licensing and OpenJDK licensing are two different things, and I believe Avner was asking about OpenJDK, since this is an OpenJDK list. And with respect to OpenJDK, the original answer from Andrew was correct I think. No need to spread FUD. Cheers, Roman From geir at pobox.com Thu Jan 21 13:20:42 2010 From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:20:42 -0500 Subject: Licensing questions In-Reply-To: <1264078848.2084.11.camel@localhost> References: <7b64f2951001202352s3eddb7edo5d8f033ce6afc6ac@mail.gmail.com> <4B581FDF.9040805@redhat.com> <1264076662.2084.3.camel@localhost> <1264078848.2084.11.camel@localhost> Message-ID: On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:00 AM, Mario Torre wrote: > Il giorno gio, 21/01/2010 alle 07.44 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. ha > scritto: > >> It's far from a myth. Sun has been open about the fact that they won't give the ASF a TCK license for Java SE in order to protect licensing revenue. > > Usual story as always with you, Geir. Because it's a continuing problem. I and others are passionate about having the freedom to implement the Java SE spec and pass the TCK, and we haven't given up the fight. You may not understand it now, but having one commercial entity able to assert direct control over any independent implementation of any spec, Java or otherwise, is a bad thing for FLOSS and software in general. Sun's recalcitrance in dealing with Google over ME led us to Android (based on Apache Harmony's class libraries!), which is great because of the shake it's giving the mobile space, but I do have reservations simply because I'm not interested in seeing Java fork. Talk about Pyrrhic victories... > > Just because you didn't got the TCK, you just divert from OpenJDK > licensing to TCK licensing, which is not the topic of the mail and a > completely different issue (and I'm not ignoring this, like you probably > *may* think or guess, just saying that it's a different topic and a > different problem, but especially a different question!). At some point, you have to recognize that the TCK decision and the OpenJDK decision weren't made independently. The TCK decision is reflective of big problem in the Java ecosystem, something bigger than the contractual dispute between the ASF and Sun. Sun sees a TCK-passing, independent-implementation of the Java specification over which Sun has no control a threat to Sun's business. - 0 - But anyway, to be really clear - OpenJDK licensing is fine. It's the choice of the copyright holder, and Sun had the right to license the code any way they want. And everyone who uses that code must respect the license terms. Note that the individual asked about commercial, embedded use, which isn't always compatible with the reciprocity conditions of the GPL, CP exception notwithstanding. It will be interesting to learn more about his use case. > >> That said, have you embedded openJDK into a commercial product? > > What do you think? I'm guessing no. geir > > Cheers, > Mario > From geir at pobox.com Thu Jan 21 13:21:30 2010 From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:21:30 -0500 Subject: Licensing questions In-Reply-To: <1264079598.2664.5.camel@moonlight> References: <7b64f2951001202352s3eddb7edo5d8f033ce6afc6ac@mail.gmail.com> <4B581FDF.9040805@redhat.com> <1264076662.2084.3.camel@localhost> <1264079598.2664.5.camel@moonlight> Message-ID: Fair enough :) geir On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:13 AM, Roman Kennke wrote: > >>>> Mr Levy may discover that his paths lead to Sun's software sales group >>> >>> This is a myth. >> >> It's far from a myth. Sun has been open about the fact that they won't give the ASF a TCK license for Java SE in order to protect licensing revenue. >> >>> I never had any problem so far, neither I will have as >>> soon as the fairness of the license is respected (which is, of course, >>> from both sides). >> >> I'm not suggesting the GPLv2 is a bad license, nor would I suggest that anyone not respect the terms. >> >> Sun is using it as a tool to ensure that anyone that needs to make changes or link the non-exception parts to custom code either has to GPL their code, or go to sun for a commercial license. (Why else do you think they need to get joint copyright on any contribution to the project??) Use of the GPL's reciprocity conditions is perfectly legitimate and used by many fine organizations before them (MySQL AB....). >> >> That said, have you embedded openJDK into a commercial product? > > TCK licensing and OpenJDK licensing are two different things, and I > believe Avner was asking about OpenJDK, since this is an OpenJDK list. > And with respect to OpenJDK, the original answer from Andrew was correct > I think. No need to spread FUD. > > Cheers, Roman > > From volker.simonis at gmail.com Thu Jan 21 13:52:02 2010 From: volker.simonis at gmail.com (Volker Simonis) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:52:02 +0100 Subject: Licensing questions In-Reply-To: <1264078848.2084.11.camel@localhost> References: <7b64f2951001202352s3eddb7edo5d8f033ce6afc6ac@mail.gmail.com> <4B581FDF.9040805@redhat.com> <1264076662.2084.3.camel@localhost> <1264078848.2084.11.camel@localhost> Message-ID: On 1/21/10, Mario Torre wrote: > Il giorno gio, 21/01/2010 alle 07.44 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. ha > scritto: > > > > It's far from a myth. Sun has been open about the fact that they won't give the ASF a TCK license for Java SE in order to protect licensing revenue. > > > Usual story as always with you, Geir. > > Just because you didn't got the TCK, you just divert from OpenJDK > licensing to TCK licensing, which is not the topic of the mail and a > completely different issue (and I'm not ignoring this, like you probably > *may* think or guess, just saying that it's a different topic and a > different problem, but especially a different question!). Unfortuantely I'm afraid it's not a comlpetely different issue because by licensing the TCK you automatically get the rights to use all the IP from Sun's Java implementation. You can of course use the OpenJDK completely safe from a licensing point of view as long as you conform to the licensing terms, but you can never be sure you don't violate any IP rights. And as far as I know Sun has never commented on which IP is build into OpeneJDK nor how they made any statement on how they plan to handle this. Such a statemnt or promis would have been invalideted anyway now by the Sun/Oracle merger. > > > > That said, have you embedded openJDK into a commercial product? > > > What do you think? > > Cheers, > > Mario > > From roman at kennke.org Thu Jan 21 13:53:00 2010 From: roman at kennke.org (Roman Kennke) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:53:00 +0100 Subject: Licensing questions In-Reply-To: References: <7b64f2951001202352s3eddb7edo5d8f033ce6afc6ac@mail.gmail.com> <4B581FDF.9040805@redhat.com> <1264076662.2084.3.camel@localhost> <1264079598.2664.5.camel@moonlight> Message-ID: <1264081980.2664.9.camel@moonlight> Actually I think your answer was correct too, Sun's marketing dep might also be a good place to ask, since Sun holds the copyright to the code. Question is if they have the answer that you'd like ;-) /Roman Am Donnerstag, den 21.01.2010, 08:21 -0500 schrieb Geir Magnusson Jr.: > Fair enough :) > > geir > > On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:13 AM, Roman Kennke wrote: > > > > >>>> Mr Levy may discover that his paths lead to Sun's software sales group > >>> > >>> This is a myth. > >> > >> It's far from a myth. Sun has been open about the fact that they won't give the ASF a TCK license for Java SE in order to protect licensing revenue. > >> > >>> I never had any problem so far, neither I will have as > >>> soon as the fairness of the license is respected (which is, of course, > >>> from both sides). > >> > >> I'm not suggesting the GPLv2 is a bad license, nor would I suggest that anyone not respect the terms. > >> > >> Sun is using it as a tool to ensure that anyone that needs to make changes or link the non-exception parts to custom code either has to GPL their code, or go to sun for a commercial license. (Why else do you think they need to get joint copyright on any contribution to the project??) Use of the GPL's reciprocity conditions is perfectly legitimate and used by many fine organizations before them (MySQL AB....). > >> > >> That said, have you embedded openJDK into a commercial product? > > > > TCK licensing and OpenJDK licensing are two different things, and I > > believe Avner was asking about OpenJDK, since this is an OpenJDK list. > > And with respect to OpenJDK, the original answer from Andrew was correct > > I think. No need to spread FUD. > > > > Cheers, Roman > > > > > > From neugens at limasoftware.net Thu Jan 21 14:01:30 2010 From: neugens at limasoftware.net (Mario Torre) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:01:30 +0100 Subject: Licensing questions In-Reply-To: References: <7b64f2951001202352s3eddb7edo5d8f033ce6afc6ac@mail.gmail.com> <4B581FDF.9040805@redhat.com> <1264076662.2084.3.camel@localhost> <1264078848.2084.11.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1264082490.2084.40.camel@localhost> Il giorno gio, 21/01/2010 alle 08.20 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. ha scritto: > On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:00 AM, Mario Torre wrote: > > > Il giorno gio, 21/01/2010 alle 07.44 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. ha > > scritto: > > > >> It's far from a myth. Sun has been open about the fact that they won't give the ASF a TCK license for Java SE in order to protect licensing revenue. > > > > Usual story as always with you, Geir. > > Because it's a continuing problem. > > I and others are passionate about having the freedom to implement the Java SE spec and pass the TCK, and we haven't given up the fight. You may not understand it now, but having one commercial entity able to assert direct control over any independent implementation of any spec, Java or otherwise, is a bad thing for FLOSS and software in general. > > Sun's recalcitrance in dealing with Google over ME led us to Android (based on Apache Harmony's class libraries!), which is great because of the shake it's giving the mobile space, but I do have reservations simply because I'm not interested in seeing Java fork. Talk about Pyrrhic victories... Not sure what to add, we're going into the usual endless loop here and i got work to do... The TCK issue is concrete, right. You wrote back then and I link here what Mark replied in his blog, which is in good wordings a point of view that I share almost completely about the issue: http://gnu.wildebeest.org/diary/2007/04/21/openjck/ You name Android. But Android isn't so Free as you imply. It's locked exactly as the ME market, and in addition to that, they use as a basis an implementation that (forgive me if I say that) is far for being usable: the fact that they add, in house, all bells and whistles, add their own stack on it, and just develop that, without back contributions, doesn't mean it's open. And this is allowed because your funny license[1] explicitly allows that, but as you say, every one is free to chose whatever license wants for his own projects, and this is a point where I completely agree with you (shall the world end up today because I said that!). There's nothing that prevent you to port OpenJDK to any Symbian phone, for example, just sit down and do it. > Note that the individual asked about commercial, embedded use, which isn't always compatible > with the reciprocity conditions of the GPL, CP exception notwithstanding. Yeah, indeed. Although I have some experience on that and 99% of the time the CP is what makes the difference. > I'm guessing no. Like Mark would say, you really believe I'm just an "anarchist free software punk". But, ok it doesn't matter... Once again, let's go back to the topic, I quote Andrews' FUD free reply: "The usual advice with free software is that if you need legal advice, consult a lawyer". That's all you need. Cheers, Mario [1] Yeah, truth is, by saying funny, I'm pushing it to provoke you a bit, because I honestly don't think the ASL is a bad license at all. From geir at pobox.com Thu Jan 21 14:01:52 2010 From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:01:52 -0500 Subject: Licensing questions In-Reply-To: <1264081980.2664.9.camel@moonlight> References: <7b64f2951001202352s3eddb7edo5d8f033ce6afc6ac@mail.gmail.com> <4B581FDF.9040805@redhat.com> <1264076662.2084.3.camel@localhost> <1264079598.2664.5.camel@moonlight> <1264081980.2664.9.camel@moonlight> Message-ID: I have no wish for anyone to have trouble working with Java, no matter what implementation they choose. geir On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:53 AM, Roman Kennke wrote: > Actually I think your answer was correct too, Sun's marketing dep might > also be a good place to ask, since Sun holds the copyright to the code. > Question is if they have the answer that you'd like ;-) > > /Roman > > > Am Donnerstag, den 21.01.2010, 08:21 -0500 schrieb Geir Magnusson Jr.: >> Fair enough :) >> >> geir >> >> On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:13 AM, Roman Kennke wrote: >> >>> >>>>>> Mr Levy may discover that his paths lead to Sun's software sales group >>>>> >>>>> This is a myth. >>>> >>>> It's far from a myth. Sun has been open about the fact that they won't give the ASF a TCK license for Java SE in order to protect licensing revenue. >>>> >>>>> I never had any problem so far, neither I will have as >>>>> soon as the fairness of the license is respected (which is, of course, >>>>> from both sides). >>>> >>>> I'm not suggesting the GPLv2 is a bad license, nor would I suggest that anyone not respect the terms. >>>> >>>> Sun is using it as a tool to ensure that anyone that needs to make changes or link the non-exception parts to custom code either has to GPL their code, or go to sun for a commercial license. (Why else do you think they need to get joint copyright on any contribution to the project??) Use of the GPL's reciprocity conditions is perfectly legitimate and used by many fine organizations before them (MySQL AB....). >>>> >>>> That said, have you embedded openJDK into a commercial product? >>> >>> TCK licensing and OpenJDK licensing are two different things, and I >>> believe Avner was asking about OpenJDK, since this is an OpenJDK list. >>> And with respect to OpenJDK, the original answer from Andrew was correct >>> I think. No need to spread FUD. >>> >>> Cheers, Roman >>> >>> >> >> > > From geir at pobox.com Thu Jan 21 14:09:06 2010 From: geir at pobox.com (Geir Magnusson Jr.) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:09:06 -0500 Subject: Licensing questions In-Reply-To: <1264082490.2084.40.camel@localhost> References: <7b64f2951001202352s3eddb7edo5d8f033ce6afc6ac@mail.gmail.com> <4B581FDF.9040805@redhat.com> <1264076662.2084.3.camel@localhost> <1264078848.2084.11.camel@localhost> <1264082490.2084.40.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <22899B25-04CC-426F-AB7E-F717130AD6C6@pobox.com> On Jan 21, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Mario Torre wrote: > Il giorno gio, 21/01/2010 alle 08.20 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. ha > scritto: >> On Jan 21, 2010, at 8:00 AM, Mario Torre wrote: >> >>> Il giorno gio, 21/01/2010 alle 07.44 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. ha >>> scritto: >>> >>>> It's far from a myth. Sun has been open about the fact that they won't give the ASF a TCK license for Java SE in order to protect licensing revenue. >>> >>> Usual story as always with you, Geir. >> >> Because it's a continuing problem. >> >> I and others are passionate about having the freedom to implement the Java SE spec and pass the TCK, and we haven't given up the fight. You may not understand it now, but having one commercial entity able to assert direct control over any independent implementation of any spec, Java or otherwise, is a bad thing for FLOSS and software in general. >> >> Sun's recalcitrance in dealing with Google over ME led us to Android (based on Apache Harmony's class libraries!), which is great because of the shake it's giving the mobile space, but I do have reservations simply because I'm not interested in seeing Java fork. Talk about Pyrrhic victories... > > Not sure what to add, we're going into the usual endless loop here and i > got work to do... :) > > The TCK issue is concrete, right. > > You wrote back then and I link here what Mark replied in his blog, which > is in good wordings a point of view that I share almost completely about > the issue: > > http://gnu.wildebeest.org/diary/2007/04/21/openjck/ > > You name Android. But Android isn't so Free as you imply. It's locked > exactly as the ME market, and in addition to that, they use as a basis > an implementation that (forgive me if I say that) is far for being > usable: the fact that they add, in house, all bells and whistles, add > their own stack on it, and just develop that, without back > contributions, doesn't mean it's open. I guess it depends on your definition of open. > > And this is allowed because your funny license[1] explicitly allows > that, but as you say, every one is free to chose whatever license wants > for his own projects, and this is a point where I completely agree with > you (shall the world end up today because I said that!). > > There's nothing that prevent you to port OpenJDK to any Symbian phone, > for example, just sit down and do it. The interesting question is why haven't people done that? > >> Note that the individual asked about commercial, embedded use, which isn't always compatible >> with the reciprocity conditions of the GPL, CP exception notwithstanding. > > Yeah, indeed. Although I have some experience on that and 99% of the > time the CP is what makes the difference. as long as that's the touchpoint. If the touchpoint is the "bottom", things are different. (Which is why the entire 'surface' isn't coated with CP...) > >> I'm guessing no. > > Like Mark would say, you really believe I'm just an "anarchist free > software punk". Nope. I never assumed. But I've never heard of a tight embedding of OpenJDK (in the sense you embed Java ME, or Android), I simply assumed that the probability that you have done so was small. Have you done so? :) > > But, ok it doesn't matter... Once again, let's go back to the topic, I > quote Andrews' FUD free reply: "The usual advice with free software is > that if you need legal advice, consult a lawyer". That's all you need. > > Cheers, > Mario > > [1] Yeah, truth is, by saying funny, I'm pushing it to provoke you a > bit, because I honestly don't think the ASL is a bad license at all. It's one choice among many. (And it's "AL" - there is no "Software" in the name of the license...) > > From Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM Thu Jan 21 14:21:45 2010 From: Dalibor.Topic at Sun.COM (Dalibor Topic) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:21:45 +0100 Subject: Older versions In-Reply-To: <4B580D6A.3020308@mtsystems.ch> References: <4B580D6A.3020308@mtsystems.ch> Message-ID: <4B5862F9.8040308@sun.com> Marco Trudel wrote: > Dear all > > I need to get b26 (24_apr_2008) but it seems only the newest source > bundles and plugs can be downloaded from the website (at least I cannot > find an archive or alike). > So I think > hg fclone -r jdk7-b26 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl openjdk > gave me the source for the version I want. Not quite - you probably want jdk7/jdk7 rather thenjdk7/tl . > But how to I get the > corresponding binary-plugs > (jdk-7-ea-plug-b26-windows-i586-24_apr_2008.jar)? 2008, a blast from the past - I don't think that binary plugs from that long ago are still on the web - typically the last couple of them are. The source bundles for jdk7 end up at http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/promoted/bXY/ and currently go back to b70, which was promoted a bit more then 5 months ago. Sometime back in 2009 the jdk7 build stopped requiring binary plugs, fixing the kind of problem you're seeing - so if you can, I'd suggest going with a more recent jdk7 build for your development. 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 marco at mtsystems.ch Thu Jan 21 14:26:14 2010 From: marco at mtsystems.ch (Marco Trudel) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:26:14 +0100 Subject: Older versions In-Reply-To: <4B5862F9.8040308@sun.com> References: <4B580D6A.3020308@mtsystems.ch> <4B5862F9.8040308@sun.com> Message-ID: <4B586406.4020803@mtsystems.ch> Dear Dalibor Dalibor Topic wrote: > Marco Trudel wrote: >> Dear all >> >> I need to get b26 (24_apr_2008) but it seems only the newest source >> bundles and plugs can be downloaded from the website (at least I cannot >> find an archive or alike). >> So I think >> hg fclone -r jdk7-b26 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl openjdk >> gave me the source for the version I want. > > Not quite - you probably want jdk7/jdk7 rather thenjdk7/tl . Probably ;-) Thanks. Unfortunately Mercurial is down right now... >> But how to I get the >> corresponding binary-plugs >> (jdk-7-ea-plug-b26-windows-i586-24_apr_2008.jar)? > > 2008, a blast from the past - I don't think that binary plugs > from that long ago are still on the web - typically the last > couple of them are. Anyone still having it lying around and could help me out here? Thanks and have a nice day Marco > The source bundles for jdk7 end up at > > http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/promoted/bXY/ > > and currently go back to b70, which was promoted a bit more then > 5 months ago. > > Sometime back in 2009 the jdk7 build stopped requiring binary plugs, > fixing the kind of problem you're seeing - so if you can, I'd > suggest going with a more recent jdk7 build for your development. > > cheers, > dalibor topic > From neugens at limasoftware.net Thu Jan 21 15:23:28 2010 From: neugens at limasoftware.net (Mario Torre) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:23:28 +0100 Subject: Licensing questions In-Reply-To: <22899B25-04CC-426F-AB7E-F717130AD6C6@pobox.com> References: <7b64f2951001202352s3eddb7edo5d8f033ce6afc6ac@mail.gmail.com> <4B581FDF.9040805@redhat.com> <1264076662.2084.3.camel@localhost> <1264078848.2084.11.camel@localhost> <1264082490.2084.40.camel@localhost> <22899B25-04CC-426F-AB7E-F717130AD6C6@pobox.com> Message-ID: <1264087408.2084.74.camel@localhost> Il giorno gio, 21/01/2010 alle 09.09 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr. ha scritto: > Nope. I never assumed. But I've never heard of a tight embedding of OpenJDK (in the sense you embed Java ME, or Android), I simply assumed that the probability that you have done so was small. > > Have you done so? :) Yeah, you can read my blog if you're interested, I've worked on a number of crazy platforms and I mainly work on the Graphics ports. We only use the Class library code of course. I guess you can't get everything for free, isn't it? :) If you'll be at FOSDEM, we can discuss it with the other guys, I think some flame is fun, but we may even get some constructive point between a beer and the other. The fact is this: I would like to help out with the TCK, let's say, employing a common strategy, pushing the right people in the right direction and so on, but when the conversation, right at the beginning, starts with FUD about licenses, well... I get very unmotivated, honest. Cheers, Mario From mr at sun.com Thu Jan 21 16:08:01 2010 From: mr at sun.com (Mark Reinhold) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 08:08:01 -0800 Subject: Mercurial server down? 500 - Internal Server Error In-Reply-To: mark@klomp.org; Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:26:52 +0100; <1264076812.3074.1.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <20100121160801.F26CB433@eggemoggin.niobe.net> > Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:26:52 +0100 > From: Mark Wielaard > http://hg.openjdk.java.net/ gives a 500 - Internal Server Error Fixed. - Mark From Bradford.Wetmore at Sun.COM Thu Jan 21 20:01:47 2010 From: Bradford.Wetmore at Sun.COM (Brad Wetmore) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:01:47 -0800 Subject: Older versions In-Reply-To: <4B5862F9.8040308@sun.com> References: <4B580D6A.3020308@mtsystems.ch> <4B5862F9.8040308@sun.com> Message-ID: <4B58B2AB.7030207@sun.com> >> I need to get b26 (24_apr_2008) but it seems only the newest source >> bundles and plugs can be downloaded from the website (at least I cannot >> find an archive or alike). >> So I think >> hg fclone -r jdk7-b26 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl openjdk >> gave me the source for the version I want. > > Not quite - you probably want jdk7/jdk7 rather thenjdk7/tl . Minor technical nit: while I agree with you that it makes more sense to get your forest directly from the MASTER (jdk7/jdk7) forest, you should be able to get the exact same forest tagged jdk7-b26 from any of the forests that feed from jdk7/jdk7 (tl/awt/hotspot/build) and are reasonably up-to-date with the MASTER. They should all point to exactly the same tagged changeset. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding of how Mercurial works. Brad >> But how to I get the >> corresponding binary-plugs >> (jdk-7-ea-plug-b26-windows-i586-24_apr_2008.jar)? > > 2008, a blast from the past - I don't think that binary plugs > from that long ago are still on the web - typically the last > couple of them are. The source bundles for jdk7 end up at > > http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/promoted/bXY/ > > and currently go back to b70, which was promoted a bit more then > 5 months ago. > > Sometime back in 2009 the jdk7 build stopped requiring binary plugs, > fixing the kind of problem you're seeing - so if you can, I'd > suggest going with a more recent jdk7 build for your development. > > cheers, > dalibor topic > From gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org Fri Jan 22 02:27:01 2010 From: gnu_andrew at member.fsf.org (Andrew John Hughes) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:27:01 +0000 Subject: Older versions In-Reply-To: <4B58B2AB.7030207@sun.com> References: <4B580D6A.3020308@mtsystems.ch> <4B5862F9.8040308@sun.com> <4B58B2AB.7030207@sun.com> Message-ID: <17c6771e1001211827o4ed50988ge9023e513424de32@mail.gmail.com> 2010/1/21 Brad Wetmore : > >>> I need to get b26 (24_apr_2008) but it seems only the newest source >>> bundles and plugs can be downloaded from the website (at least I cannot >>> find an archive or alike). >>> So I think >>> ? ?hg fclone -r jdk7-b26 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/tl openjdk >>> gave me the source for the version I want. >> >> Not quite - you probably want jdk7/jdk7 rather thenjdk7/tl . > > Minor technical nit: ?while I agree with you that it makes more sense to > get your forest directly from the MASTER (jdk7/jdk7) forest, you should > be able to get the exact same forest tagged jdk7-b26 from any of the > forests that feed from jdk7/jdk7 (tl/awt/hotspot/build) and are > reasonably up-to-date with the MASTER. ?They should all point to exactly > the same tagged changeset. > > Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding of how > Mercurial works. > It does with the process Sun has of promoting all changesets from a project forest to master and then pulling from master to update the project forest. I think you'd get other changesets if the project doesn't push to master e.g. the icedtea and jigsaw forests, though that's unlikely to apply with something as early as b26 (the forests only go back to b24). > Brad > >>> But how to I get the >>> corresponding binary-plugs >>> (jdk-7-ea-plug-b26-windows-i586-24_apr_2008.jar)? >> >> 2008, a blast from the past - I don't think that binary plugs >> from that long ago are still on the web - typically the last >> couple of them are. The source bundles for jdk7 end up at >> >> http://download.java.net/openjdk/jdk7/promoted/bXY/ >> >> and currently go back to b70, which was promoted a bit more then >> 5 months ago. >> >> Sometime back in 2009 the jdk7 build stopped requiring binary plugs, >> fixing the kind of problem you're seeing - so if you can, I'd >> suggest going with a more recent jdk7 build for your development. If you grab a copy of IcedTea7 1.7 from the 2nd of June, 2008: http://icedtea.classpath.org/download/source/icedtea-1.7.tar.gz it will build b26 without the need for binary plugs. As Dalibor says, a more recent version would be better. Why do you need something as old as b26? >> >> cheers, >> dalibor topic >> > -- 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 Michael.Wilkerson at Sun.COM Fri Jan 22 05:37:01 2010 From: Michael.Wilkerson at Sun.COM (Michael Wilkerson) Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:37:01 -0800 Subject: JDK 7 build 80 is available at the openjdk.java.net website Message-ID: <4B59397D.4000603@sun.com> The OpenJDK source is available at: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/8403096d1fe7 The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 80 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-b80.html --Michael Wilkerson From volker.simonis at gmail.com Fri Jan 22 09:58:57 2010 From: volker.simonis at gmail.com (Volker Simonis) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 10:58:57 +0100 Subject: Licensing questions In-Reply-To: <1264104595.10304.24.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> References: <7b64f2951001202352s3eddb7edo5d8f033ce6afc6ac@mail.gmail.com> <4B581FDF.9040805@redhat.com> <1264076662.2084.3.camel@localhost> <1264078848.2084.11.camel@localhost> <1264104595.10304.24.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: Hi Mark, I hope you don't mind that I also post this back the discussion list, but I think this is a much too important topic in order to hide it in a private communication. Please see my other comments inline.. On 1/21/10, Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Volker, > > Taking off-list, since I assume this is all about proprietary > derivatives, which are a bit off-topic on the list. > > > On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 14:52 +0100, Volker Simonis wrote: > > Unfortuantely I'm afraid it's not a comlpetely different issue because > > by licensing the TCK you automatically get the rights to use all the > > IP from Sun's Java implementation. You can of course use the OpenJDK > > completely safe from a licensing point of view as long as you conform > > to the licensing terms, but you can never be sure you don't violate > > any IP rights. And as far as I know Sun has never commented on which > > IP is build into OpeneJDK nor how they made any statement on how they > > plan to handle this. Such a statemnt or promis would have been > > invalideted anyway now by the Sun/Oracle merger. > > > I have some trouble reading this since it isn't clear what you mean > precisely with "IP", I assume you mean copyrights, patents and > trademarks. You are right that only copyrights and patents are > explicitly granted to you through the GPL and not the trademark to > Java(TM) (assuming that actually is still a valid and enforceable > trademark). > What I was meaning with "IP" was exactly "patents". I think the copyright issue is clear and we don't have to further discuss it. The same applies to the "Java" trademark, which is a completely different question. But I see a real issue with patents. I know that many people (especially free software people) claim that the GPLv2 already grants you the patent rights on the covered code. But I think in reality this is not so clear, because it is not done explicitly in the license. I know about the "Implied license theories" and the claim that the GPLv2 grants an implicit patent license - at http://www.fenwick.com/docstore/Publications/IP/potential_defenses.pdf you can find a very nice summary of this topic. But even there the authors, which are lawyers by the way, conclude that: "Because the GPL [v2] is different from licenses normally available to business entities under patent law, and the applicable equitable doctrines are under broad judicial discretion, the courts may ultimately dispense with GPL [v2] issues in a manner different than as discussed herein." After all, this unclarity was one of the reason for the creation of the GPLv3 which explicitly grants GPLv3 licensees patent rights on the licensed code. So Richard Stallman himself writes in the article "Why Upgrade to GPL Version 3" (http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html): "GPLv3 also provides for explicit patent protection of the users from the program's contributors and redistributors. With GPLv2, users rely on an implicit patent license to make sure that the company which provided them a copy won't sue them, or the people they redistribute copies to, for patent infringement." For all these reasons I think that using GPLv2 code still bears the risk of patent infringements. Of course this is no real threat for people doing free software, because there's nothing (i.e. money, $$$) you could sue them for. But for big companies this may be a real problem. With OpenJDK I'm afraid that Sun INTENTIONALLY chose GPLv2 instead of GPLv3 to keep all options open and now that Oracle owns all the code, copyrights and patents, this may get a real thread. I just hope I could make my point clear now. Any comments or other opinions are of course highly welcome! Volker > For a proprietary derivative you could also be granted the same through > the JCP process that seems to involve passing the TCK. And I believe > that also includes trademark rights for calling stuff Java(TM). But for > products directly derived from the OpenJDK code base any of that really > matters, since when following the requirements of the GPL you already > have those (except the trademark). > > I actually agree that we should make sure the TCK is also released as > Free Software, and that the JCP should be changed so the rights granted > through the OpenJDK reference implementation flow towards anybody > creating an implementation of a JSR. But I don't think requiring > copyleft to pass through patent claims and copyrights for making > derivatives is such a bad thing. It might not be ideal for someone > wanting to create proprietary code, but it has huge advantage of > protecting and expanding the free software ecosystem. > > It seems to me that having the TCK as free software so anybody could use > it as they wish, and declaring particular instances as reference test > suite for granting the trademark would be a great extension to the > current setup. > > Was that what you were discussing when you used "IP" in the above? > > Cheers, > > > Mark > > From mark at klomp.org Fri Jan 22 10:43:03 2010 From: mark at klomp.org (Mark Wielaard) Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 11:43:03 +0100 Subject: Licensing questions In-Reply-To: References: <7b64f2951001202352s3eddb7edo5d8f033ce6afc6ac@mail.gmail.com> <4B581FDF.9040805@redhat.com> <1264076662.2084.3.camel@localhost> <1264078848.2084.11.camel@localhost> <1264104595.10304.24.camel@springer.wildebeest.org> Message-ID: <1264156983.29473.40.camel@hermans.wildebeest.org> Hi Volker, On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 10:58 +0100, Volker Simonis wrote: > I hope you don't mind that I also post this back the discussion list, > but I think this is a much too important topic in order to hide it in > a private communication. Please see my other comments inline.. I don't mind (but please do ask next time before bouncing private communication public) and I will reply on-list since you did, but this is really getting way off-topic. > On 1/21/10, Mark Wielaard wrote: > > Hi Volker, > > > > Taking off-list, since I assume this is all about proprietary > > derivatives, which are a bit off-topic on the list. > > > What I was meaning with "IP" was exactly "patents". I think the > copyright issue is clear and we don't have to further discuss it. The > same applies to the "Java" trademark, which is a completely different > question. OK, please do use the term patent then in the future. > But I see a real issue with patents. I know that many people > (especially free software people) claim that the GPLv2 already grants > you the patent rights on the covered code. It is not just GPLv2, it is any free software license that grants Use rights, since patents cover usage. You don't need to mention them explicitly. But the GPL[v2] actually does and makes clear that is the explicit intent of the person distributing code under the GPL right from the start: "We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use" > I know about the "Implied license theories" and the claim that the GPLv2 > grants an implicit patent license - at > http://www.fenwick.com/docstore/Publications/IP/potential_defenses.pdf > you can find a very nice summary of this topic. > But even there the > authors, which are lawyers by the way, conclude that: "Because the GPL > [v2] is different from licenses normally available to business > entities under patent law, and the applicable equitable doctrines are > under broad judicial discretion, the courts may ultimately dispense > with GPL [v2] issues in a manner different than as discussed herein." Of course they are lawyers, so they have to put in some handwaving :) But their conclusion at the end of the paper is actually pretty clear, one can rely on patent rights being granted through the GPL: "from available case law, it is reasonable to conclude that the implied license defense is available and tenable for a defendant in a patent suit involving software released under the GPL." This is the same advice I got from the FSF when I asked whether the patent grants from Sun for OpenJDK through GPLv2 were strong enough. The GPL acts like a patent shield between all parties. http://developer.classpath.org/pipermail/classpath/2006-November/001675.html > After all, this unclarity was one of the reason for the creation of > the GPLv3 which explicitly grants GPLv3 licensees patent rights on the > licensed code. So Richard Stallman himself writes in the article "Why > Upgrade to GPL Version 3" (http://gplv3.fsf.org/rms-why.html): "GPLv3 > also provides for explicit patent protection of the users from the > program's contributors and redistributors. With GPLv2, users rely on > an implicit patent license to make sure that the company which > provided them a copy won't sue them, or the people they redistribute > copies to, for patent infringement." GPLv3 definitely strengthens the patent grant by including not only direct distributors, but also preventing tricks like granting your patents to another party and then making it sound like they granter and the distributor are different entities (like in the Novell/Microsoft case). So, the GPLv2 OpenJDK code base only covers Sun, now Oracle, and all contributors to the OpenJDK code base directly. GPLv3 would also cover some third parties if Sun tries to do a run-around and claim some party didn't actually contribute but only waved the patent for them but not the general public. (But this is already covered through the JCP, all parties grant all their rights to Sun, so they can redistribute those.) > With OpenJDK I'm afraid that Sun INTENTIONALLY chose GPLv2 instead of > GPLv3 to keep all options open and now that Oracle owns all the code, > copyrights and patents, this may get a real thread. They intentionally chose it because GPLv3 didn't exist yet, when they released all the code :) I would support an upgrade to v3 now though if that eases your concerns. So there are really no concerns here, even for some of the large companies that now distribute our code, if you just follow the GPL when redistributing any OpenJDK derivative. I cannot give you advise about proprietary redistribution though. > > For a proprietary derivative you could also be granted the same through > > the JCP process that seems to involve passing the TCK. And I believe > > that also includes trademark rights for calling stuff Java(TM). But for > > products directly derived from the OpenJDK code base any of that really > > matters, since when following the requirements of the GPL you already > > have those (except the trademark). > > > > I actually agree that we should make sure the TCK is also released as > > Free Software, and that the JCP should be changed so the rights granted > > through the OpenJDK reference implementation flow towards anybody > > creating an implementation of a JSR. But I don't think requiring > > copyleft to pass through patent claims and copyrights for making > > derivatives is such a bad thing. It might not be ideal for someone > > wanting to create proprietary code, but it has huge advantage of > > protecting and expanding the free software ecosystem. > > > > It seems to me that having the TCK as free software so anybody could use > > it as they wish, and declaring particular instances as reference test > > suite for granting the trademark would be a great extension to the > > current setup. > > > > Was that what you were discussing when you used "IP" in the above? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Mark From Michael.Wilkerson at Sun.COM Fri Jan 29 06:15:37 2010 From: Michael.Wilkerson at Sun.COM (Michael Wilkerson) Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2010 22:15:37 -0800 Subject: JDK 7 build 81 is available at the openjdk.java.net website Message-ID: <4B627D09.3000900@sun.com> The OpenJDK source is available at: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7 http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk7/jdk7/rev/e1176f86805f The OpenJDK source binary plugs for the promoted JDK 7 build 81 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-b81.html --Michael Wilkerson