Paul Fisher wrote:
This response is acutally to RMS but since he is a "saint" I send it to the
list
in hopes it reaches his sacred ears.
> RMS asked me to post his comments regarding the JTPL:
>
> Sun claims that the Sun Technology Public License for Jini is a free
> software (they say "open source") license. A quick reading (of
> version beta 1.0) showed me that it is not even close to being one. I
> found many fundamental problems:
>
> * It discriminates between commercial and noncommercial distribution.
> This sort of discrimination is incompatible with free software.
Correct !
>
>
> * It requires payment of royalties for commercial distribution.
> Requiring royalties is entirely incompatible with free software.
Correct !Althouhg a onetime support fee makes sense
If you wish to distrubute Jini comercially you need to buy support.
Th support contract is between the commercial distributor and Sun.
i.e. non of our busines. With the added constrint that if you distrubute
jini commercially
You have trhe right to waive ally support from Sun. And you must licnes your
jini "releated code
under GPL and sign a complince contract similar to the current Jini
contract.
Its up to the parties involved to figure out the diffrence. But the short of
the matter is both Sun
and free software can get your source.
>
>
> * It imposes limits on what sort of modified features people can add.
> Rules about how to distribute modifications, and about how to label
> modifications, are ok in free software *provided they do not stop you
> >from adding whatever features you want*. Sun's restrictions do stop
> you, and that is incompatible with free software.
Correct but you should be free to make modification but you are requred
totell the customer you did it.
A shorst Warining contains modified Jini code may be incompatible etc etc
etc.
Is sufficient. I suspect Microsoft would take advatage of this if not
retrained by the above.
This should only apply toi free modifications. Hey I chenged it and here
are the chages.
You should be required to provide a diff to suns orginal distro wich will
recreate you distribution.
>
>
> * It does not allow you to put the source code on a public-access
> web site or ftp site. As you can see, this is nothing remotely
> like free software.
Super Correct! Very bad scene.
Althouhg the sites need a 100% jini logo or certification from Sun
that htre not distributing corrupt sources agina tied to the above.
If its a altered source you need to say so. If its just for convience of
Jini distribution fine.
I suspect the free software sites will have to contian the original pluss
flavors plus diffs.
>
>
> * The license is full of provisions that give Sun preferential treatment.
> For example, you must provide your changes to Sun before you release
> them to anyone else.
Well they need to be notified of alternative distributions I would thinkbut
it does not have to be draconian. A simple registration with a desginated
free
software ftp site is sufficient. Its Suns responsiblitlit to review the
altered distro out there.
Sun may wnat ot have a simple web page were you register your arlterd distro
and get and ID.
This would allow you to do what you whan but at least there is some simple
source control in place.
Probably get a simple vendor branch id from Sun.
>
>
> * The FAQ claims that any compatible replacement for JINI is covered
> by Sun's license. It isn't clear to me what grounds they think they
> have for such a claim, but regardless of the grounds, it is extremely
> offensive. Perhaps it is another attempt to bring back
> "look-and-feel" interface copyright. Or perhaps it has to do with the
> following:
>
> * The license claims that the source code, and even the specifications
> of JINI, are confidential trade secrets!
Correct !
>
>
> This outrageous stance paradoxically means that the free software
> community need not worry about JINI at all.
>
> A non-free library can't be part of the free software community, and
> therefore if it seems to be useful (in a narrow practical sense) for
> writing free software, it is actually a pitfall. That is what
> happened with Qt: many free software developers fell into the trap of
> using Qt.
>
> JINI is not a pitfall, or at least not a dangerous one, because Sun
> says we are not allowed to step into it! Releasing a free software
> package that works with JINI is effectively forbidden by Sun's
> license.
>
> This means that if we want to make the *capabilities* of JINI
> available for use in free software, compatibility with JINI will not
> be needed. No free software will depend on the secret details of
> JINI's interface. A totally incompatible library will be perfectly
> good for our purposes.
Okay time for me to be completley and utterly pissed off.
WHO ARE YOU RMS TO ASSUME YOU CAN SPEAK FOR ME ??
As you said once corperations are not better than individuals well your no
better than me and I
feel like I am a zealot supporter of Free Software. Maybe you should add a
statment that in RMS view Dada...
You damn sure don't represent FREE SOFTWARE regardless of how you
contributed to it.
Your contributions as a programmer do not somehow allow you too assume you
represent me in a collective fashion.
I never voted for you or Linus as the representatives of the free software
movement.
I think emacs sucks but I don't hold it agianst you : )
The microsoft half the license is a knee jerk reaction to Sun getting
burned.
Of course anybody could have told Alan that trying to play poker with a
stacked deck is a fools game.
This is a microsoft attitude and causes this bullshit to happen in the first
place. If RMS does not retract this statement
I do not feel that he represents the free software community at all !
Free Software does not play microsoft games.
If we do devlope a Jini equivilent we will interoperate with Jini. We will
not and never will try to corrupt a standard
for our own gain. That is FREE SOFTWARE !
If RMS feels that a company can actually prevet us from building free
software products which interoperate with
non free software legally this The whole free software movement is with out
merit becuse every free piece of
software can be shown to work on a closed system and thus violate there
rights.
That means to me the FSF GNU Linux etc etc are illegal.
I seriously doubt this is true but RMS thinks so.
I suspect he will be thrown in jail any day now by the look and feel police.
There every where you know.
>
>
> According to Sun, this version of the license is not final, and they
> are soliciting comments about it. By all means send them comments; I
> will send them part of this article. If they do make JINI
> free software, that would be good. But that requires a number
> of different changes, so don't hold your breath. The best thing
> to do is to ignore JINI unless and until they make it free.
The best thing to do is work with Sun and make our feelings known and come
up with a SOULTION !
And my only comment to Sun..
RMS makes a few good poiunts but he's just one voice from the free software
movement
and though many share at least one of his viws he by no means represents
the majority of the free software
movement. In fact he's a touch on the fring side. But accept for his one
statment I find totally offensive. Sun should listen.
He means well and should at least be heard. Can he actually create a new
incomatible Jini implementation ?
Not any time soon.
Mike
