Re: jdk1.1 license changes
>>>>> "Marcus" == Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
Marcus> The Hurd will be able to run Linux binaries, not by
Marcus> emulation, simply by running them (only direct use of
Marcus> kernel syscalls need emulation). As Linux is not a defined
Marcus> term, referring to it does not make any sense anyway.
Marcus> Debian GNU/Linux is defined, though, which means that we
Marcus> have to be careful not to include any parts of jdk in the
Marcus> Hurd ports. Are some of them in binary-all? In this case,
Marcus> we have a problem.
Right now the package is Arch: i386 'cause the source package has
precompiled binaries in it so you're OK.
I will rework this to something other than "Debian GNU/Linux
distribution" if someone can give me a better wording.
Marcus> But doesn't this mean that, because clause 2. is referring
Marcus> to 1.2 of the non-commercial license, and clause 1.2 is
Marcus> referring to clause 1.1, the terms in the non-commercial
Marcus> license apply to the license arramgement made for Debian?
Marcus> In this case, my question is still of relevance. For
Marcus> software in non-free, we can't make any export
Marcus> guarantees. Not even non-us fits the bill.
Section 2 in the additional licence refers to section 1.2 in the
source licence to provide a basis for my legally granting Debian the
right to redistribute. The internal source licence defines my
rights, as granted by Sun.
[Time passes...]
Oh *&%^%$*(&)&^$$%. Sun have reworked their download facility: it now
includes a registration process (it did not used to) so they can check
who's downloading the software. When they didn't have such a check I
was comfortable with our not having one either, Sun being a much
bigger legal target.
I've raised this with the Blackdown team: if I can't get a
satisfactory answer then there will be no JDK1.[12] in Debian. Period.
--
Stephen
"If I claimed I was emporer just cause some moistened bint lobbed a
scimitar at me they'd put me away"
Reply to: