On 27 Oct 1998, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Paul Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree with all the points you and RMS have written. But, as I see
> it, Sun is not claiming that Jini is Free Software. They say it is
> Open Source, which just means they're willing to provide source code
> for those who agree with the terms for that. Not that I like this
> approach (I don't), but we have to be fair in our judgements.
>
> Just my 2 cents...
>
OpenSource is a registered certification mark, owned by Software in the
Public Interest. They have conditions of use, to be found at:
http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
Sun's Jini license, does not conform to these conditions.
For example, condition
" You must provide Your Modifications to
Developer for posting prior to making them available to any
other person "
clashes with open source conditions 3 and 4.
So does Jini license condition: "You may also post
Modifications on a web-server of Your choice; provided, that
You must take reasonable precautions to ensure that only
Licensees have access to such Modifications. Such
precautions shall include, without limitation, a password
protection scheme limited to Licensees and click-on,
pre-access certification of Licensee status required of those
attempting to access the server. "
Then there is the Jini condition:
" The Source Code of the Original Code,
Developer's Modifications including, without limitation, those embodied in
Upgraded Code, and Specifications are Developer's confidential and
proprietary information ("Confidential Information").
You agree to take all
reasonable precautions to protect Confidential Information including,
without limitation, not providing or disclosing Confidential Information,
or any portion thereof, to any third party unless such third party has
executed a License as contemplated herein. "
that condition violates open source definition point 5.
If certification marks have the same principle as trade marks; that you
have to defend them or you can loose them, it seems the software in the
public interest will have to sue Sun if they continue to call their Jini
license "Open source".
In order to do that, it seems that the free software community will have
to contribute to a legal fund to allow them to do that.
My opinion is that Sun has every right to use the license they claim they
will be using, but they cannot call it open source, and I hope that Sun
sees reason before people have to sue them.
Regards,
Erwin Bolwidt
<speaking only for himself, not in any way for any person or company
that he is or may be associated with>
