Simon P. Lucy wrote:
>I don't have the references to hand right now, its a long while since I brought all
>this up originally, but there is an authority that believes combined mutually
>incompatible licences would cause any judge required to rule to say that neither
>licence could be considered valid and that the file would be public domain. I
>realise that's a worthless opinion without an authority, though it did form part of
>the solicitors' opinions I got in the first place.
>
As you know, I am not a laywer, but this looks bogus to me. If the
licenses are invalid, then there is no license. If there is no license,
then the default applies, which means that the author has all rights and
practically no one else. Which is the opposite of public domain. I would
be very vary of a solicitor which suggests what you repeat.
>I still wasn't happy with it though, and one client decided to go the J2EE Swing
>direction instead specifically because of licencing issues.
>
You mean the J2EE(TM) Swing(TM) direction.
"you agree to comply with the Sun Trademark and Logo Usage Requirements
currently located at http://www.sun.com/policies/trademarks.";
<http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/1.1/jre/LICENSE>
