OpenJDK JRE & Embedded Devices

[Volker Simonis]

The only freedom you DON'T have with OpenJDK is to:
- run the TCK for it on your embedded device (see
http://openjdk.java.net/groups/conformance/JckAccess/index.html)
- call it JAVA (but you can call it OpenJDK
http://openjdk.java.net/legal/openjdk-trademark-notice.html).
These two points still depend on Oracles discretion!

For all the other points I fully agree with Andrew: you're free to use
it however you want as long as you comply to the licence.

Volker


On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/01/2011 11:01 AM, stephane.jeanjean at orange-ftgroup.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Is it possible to distribute a device with an embedded royalty free
>>>> OpenJDK JRE ?
>>>
>>> You should consult your lawyer.  Having said that, I am not a
>>> lawyer but I can't seen anything in the licence that would stop you.
>>> The only thing that gives you permission is the licence,
>>> which you should read to determine if you agree to its terms
>>> and if it gives you the permissions you need.
>>
>> OK. So it seems not so simple as I imagine. Because when lawyers are
>> there, it is not simple ! :P The different ways of your answers seem
>> to show that this kind of use is not clear. Perhaps, it depends of
>> the context and the use ?
>
> No, that is not true, and I did not say that.  There are no field of
> use restrictions on OpenJDK AFAIK.
>
> All of us on this list believe that OpenJDK is free software, and you
> have the freedom to:
>
>    * run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
>    * study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish
> (freedom 1).
>    * redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
>    * distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3).
>
> My point is that you are asking for legal advice from people who are
> not lawyers.  If you really want to know, read the licence.  I think
> it is pretty clear-cut, and gives you the freedom you need.  But my
> opinion is no substitute for reading the licence.
>
> Do I have to say it again?  Read the licence.
>
> Andrew.
>