Re: Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves

Java6 is indeed redistributable, but it's not open source. RedHat
invested a lot of money into Classpath which forced Sun to make the
moves it eventually did. It wasn't because Sun was doing the right
thing, it was because if they waited much longer, they wouldn't be in
control of Java anymore.

It really surprised me that Debian signed it, they are generally far
more strict I thought. They rebranded Firefox because of similar
restrictions placed on the user... but then, it is the user that must ok
the agreement, not Debian itself.

Java is sort of a m00t point now though, in Fedora 9, Fedora will have
OpenJDK 1.6.

On Fri, 2008-04-25 at 10:51 -0700, Timothy Selivanow wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-22 at 20:16 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Francis Earl wrote:
It has everything to do with legalities, as the source code for the
encoders/decoders is available.

Not everything that fedora makes difficult is illegal. Sun Java, for
one example, the drivers provided by the vendors of the hardware users
have chosen to purchase for another.

(doing my part to move the thread back to some-what on topic...)

It *used*to* be illegal to redistribute Java without Sun in the middle
(still subject to interpretation). That is until Java6, when Sun made
the DLJ (https://jdk-distros.dev.java.net/developer.html) and made it
retro-active for Java5. That said, have you /read/ the DLJ? It's not
exactly a fertile ground for Fedora mission objectives.


E.g. (http://download.java.net/dlj/jdk/LICENSE) (from the FAQ section):

"""
16. If some program in my OS specifies the option -Xbootclasspath to
the java command, is that considered a breach of Section 2(c)?

We realize there is some confusion about this because the
documentation for the java command at
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/tooldocs/solaris/java.html
makes specific mention of the Binary Code License (BCL). The intent
of Section 2(c) is not to restrict what end user programs do with
command line options but rather to ensure that the Sun Java
platform is not used to create hybrid implementations with
alternate technologies, or mingle the JDK code with alternate
technologies so they run together.
"""

This along with FAQ section 14 make it sound like it excludes running
gcj and classpath. Fedora also bytecode compiles to platform specific
binaries, using, gcj.

FAQ Section 17 says that you *still* have to provide a click-through
license before installation to end users, at least notifying them of
the licensing.

There was also wording that sounded like you may not be able to break it
into pieces (distribution is subject to the wording in the included
README, from the FAQ Section 9: """it allows us to adjust the technical
details of what constitutes the "Software" and what parts may be
redistributed separately or omitted from a distribution without revising
the license itself."""), even the way that JPackage does it. JPackage
is not subject to the DLJ because they are not a distro. Furthermore
they provide nosrc RPMs which require users to still go through the Sun
click-through... which satisfies Sun.

Doesn't sound very libre to me...

Additionally, there are only *three* distros that have signed the DLJ:
Debian, Ubuntu (Mark helped Sun draft the DLJ, BTW), and Gentoo. RH has
a separate agreement to "distribute" (essentially the drop-in RPMs that
Sun provides) it with EL that is not subject to the DLJ.


Disclaimers:
1.) IANAL.
2.) I like libre software...fanatically even; I have no stake in this
otherwise, professionally or not.
3.) Any non-quoted portions are of my opinion and not a position of any
other entity.
4.) Any quoted portions were not intentionally misquoted.
5.) Any misrepresentation is purely through my ignorance or
misunderstanding.


--Tim
_______________________________________
/ And so it was, later, \
| As the miller told his tale, |
| That her face, at first just ghostly, |
| Turned a whiter shade of pale. |
\ -- Procol Harum /
---------------------------------------
\
\ \
\ /\
( )
.( o ).


--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Java problem
    ... You may install the Sun ... Fedora does only care about software, which is part of its distribution. ... about Sun java integration and customers have to pay for it. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves
    ... there were ways to provide compatibility with RPM and the quirky alternatives system even though the user had to supply his own copy of the Sun code. ... fedora has broken all relationships with this repository without supplying an alternative so you can spend all day trying to find the right instructions and still not succeed. ... have you /read/ the DLJ? ... redistributed separately or omitted from a distribution without revising ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Java problem
    ... You may install the Sun ... Fedora does only care about software, which is part of its distribution. ... about Sun java integration and customers have to pay for it. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Fedora Desktop future- RedHat moves
    ... Not everything that fedora makes difficult is illegal. ... It *used*to* be illegal to redistribute Java without Sun in the middle ... have you /read/ the DLJ? ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Java problem
    ... You may install the Sun ... Fedora does only care about software, which is part of its distribution. ... about Sun java integration and customers have to pay for it. ... for the fact that Sun didn't care about Linux compatibility of their ...
    (Fedora)