Java License
I'm currently working on a Debian/Ubuntu-based Linux LiveCD Distribution to be used by the students at my university. The goal of this distro is to provide students with a development environment featuring everything they might need to use for all of their subjects throughout the entire semester. This would obviously require me to bundle Sun's JDK along with the distro. I have read the license agreement for the JDK 1.5 and I noticed the following excerpt: A. Software Internal Use and Development License Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and restrictions and exceptions set forth in the Software README file, including, but not limited to the Java Technology Restrictions of these Supplemental Terms, Sun grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without fees to reproduce internally and use internally the Software complete and unmodified for the purpose of designing, developing, and testing your Programs. If I understand this correctly, it should possible for me to bundle the JDK along with the distro for as long as it's only distributed inside my university. Am I correct? Also, what would unmodified mean in this context? Is it possible for me to unpack and install the JDK on the system (without modifying any of the files) or am I forced to distribute the original self-extracting .bin file? Thanks in advance, João Pinheiro signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
General Copyright Questions
Greetings everyone I was talking about copyright details with a friend of mine a few minutes ago and he presented me the following scenario: Amazon has millions of book covers in their database, most of them having been scanned by themselves. Do they have any kind of rights over those scans (assuming that they have permission from the original authors)? If someone were to open a shop and wanted to use Amazon's the product images, would they require Amazon's permission to do so? How about product descriptions? My first guess would be that yes, Amazon should have rights over those specific scans while the product descriptions would be copyrighted by their original authors. Would anyone be willing to shed some light into this issue? Sincerely, João Pinheiro signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
GPL Binary
A few days ago I developed a small C application which I'd like to distribute (source code included) to help university freshmen this year. The problem is that I'm using some routines and ADTs which I'm definitely going to need in other subjects in the future. Most teachers here have a really strict policy regarding similar pieces of code so I don't really want anyone to have access to those routines yet. The solution for this would be to release those routines in a compiled object file along with the source code for the application itself. Does the GPL allow me to do this or would I have to go with the BDS license for such a release? Another option for this would be a mixed GPL/BSD release but I think that would open up a completely different can of worms. Thanks in advance, João Pinheiro -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Binary
Justin Pryzby wrote: You, as the author, can do whatever you want. One who modifies the source code (which you aren't distributing) must make it available under the GPL. So, one cannot modify the source code. I don't see anything preventing you from doing this. Thank you for the clarification. You are concerned about students being accused of ripping off your code, no? Why don't you just put a header on it (say, the GPL header) with a URL pointing to the canonical online location of the code, and an explanation, targetted towards teachers, explaining that the code is freely available? Of course, teachers might also object to receiving code licensed under the GPL, but .. That's not quite it. I'm concerned with students using the code for those specific ADTs and routines in subjects that I might also be taking. There would be problems if both some student and I submitted a project with identical pieces of code. Not only would such projects be rejected, both of us would end up being accused of copying. The best option is to release the application source along with the compiled routines and ADTs. I can include extensive info about the routines and ADTs in the header files in case they want to code them themselves. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GPL Binary
Thank you for the reply! Justin didn't mention that even though YOU can do whatever you want with code you wrote, it won't do much good to release under GPL, as nobody else will have full source code to distribute, so they will be unable to distribute your code at all, modified or unmodified. Choosing a license isn't about what you want to be able to do, it's about what you want others to be able (and not be able) to do. But would they still be able to distribute the source (without the binaries) or does the license force them to distribute the ENTIRE package? If you have some dated proof (say, a sourceforge commit, or even giving your dean a copy of the code before you distribute, to prove it's yours), this goes away. Include a header at the top of the file specifying how to get the original copy and proof of original authorship, and only those who fraudulently claim your work as theirs will be punished. I'd rather not take any risks on this, specially considering what happened to a friend of mine last year. A student stole his source while he was away from the laptop and submitted it himself. The result was that both both of them got kicked out of the subject even though the other guy admitted that he had stolen the source and my friend proved that he had coded it himself. They completely disregarded such proof and forced my friend to take the entire subject again. IMO, the best option is to publish it all, in some way that you can prove the work is original to you if you expect that proof will be needed later. Second best is to publish a partial-source application, as you say, but you're best off using a BSD-like license for this, or nobody will be able to redistribute it at all. I would prefer to publish it all but, taking what I referred on the previous paragraph into account, I think that I will go with the second best option and release it under a BSD-like license. - João Pinheiro -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
