Re: Java debs anyone?
On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 06:40:41PM +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > >If already, please go for a real language instead. > > > >/me suggest objective caml, but then i am biased since i maintain it :) > > O'Caml is one of the nicest languages I have the pleasure to use. Thanks > for maintaining it! He ... :) Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Java debs anyone?
Sven Luther wrote: If already, please go for a real language instead. /me suggest objective caml, but then i am biased since i maintain it :) O'Caml is one of the nicest languages I have the pleasure to use. Thanks for maintaining it! cheers, dalivor
Re: Java debs anyone?
Eric Gaumer wrote: If I manage a few hundred servers that all use Java then I have to download Java on each machine individually? I can't provide that package to my network via apt? Maybe not globally to the world but how about locally to all nodes on the network. This is silly. I could see if it were something I paid for. Then it would make sense that each machine obtain a legal licensed copy but we are talking about a free program (monetarily speaking). Non free licenses are often silly and ridiculous. They need not to make sense to the end user, they exist to give the copyright holders rights that the copyright doesn't give them. All of Sun's licenses for Java are absurd at best, and legal minefields at worst. They are no different than most other non-free licenses, though. Which is why people should not use non-free software in general. The truth of the matter is that nobody here seems to have legal expertise in the matter and therefore can't accurately determine what exactly the license allows for. Only a lawyer can tell you what precisely is legal in your precise context of use of the IBM JDK due to their ambiguous license. Laymen can make good faith efforts to interpret the license, but if you want legal advice, ask a lawyer. If you are using the IBM JDK (or any other non-free software, in general) commercially, you should have your company's legal staff check over the licensing terms wrt to your planned usage to make sure that the BSA doesn't come and shut you down when a disgruntled employee calls them later. It's worth a try and wouldn't require much effort on their part. We'll see just how committed IBM is to the Linux end user. I applaud your energy, but it's a wasted effort. Many people have tried to talk to Sun about making it easier to redistribute Sun-derived runtime environments for years. Nothing ever actually came out of it. Sun does not listen to people pointing out flaws in their Java licenses. Never did, never will. Given that Sun provides a large chunk of IBM's JDK, there is no chance IBM could change the license of Sun's code if Sun doesn't want such a change for their code. Given that they have refused to fix the licenses in the past 8 years, they will surely continue to refuse to do so in the next 8 years :) The ambiguous clauses in the JDK license are not a problem IBM (or BEA, Blackdown, or other Sun-derived code porters) can solve, it's a problem solely created and maintained by Sun for Sun's benefit. cheers, dalibor topic
Re: Java debs anyone?
Dalibor Topic wrote: Eric Gaumer wrote: Like I mentioned earlier, dump Java and start supporting mono. It's fully open and could easily rival Java. C# already fixes all the nuisances and problems Java has. It is what Java wanted to be. Yawn. Please take it to comp.lang.java.advocacy or wherever else people meet to compare whose language is longer, bigger, harder. Thanks. Yes. Please take it to a forum that might have interest in your topic. This is the srong forum.
Re: Java debs anyone?
Eric Gaumer wrote: Like I mentioned earlier, dump Java and start supporting mono. It's fully open and could easily rival Java. C# already fixes all the nuisances and problems Java has. It is what Java wanted to be. Yawn. Please take it to comp.lang.java.advocacy or wherever else people meet to compare whose language is longer, bigger, harder. Thanks. cheers, dalibor topic
Re: Java debs anyone?
> >C# is an attempt of Microsoft to take more controll over the program we write, >and should be avoided if possible. > Sven, Can you please avoid feeding the trolls ;) -- Cedric Pradalier
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 12:31:02PM -0800, Eric Gaumer wrote: > On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 13:36 -0500, Barry Hawkins wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Eric Gaumer wrote: > > [...] > > | If you feel so passionate about free software then lets boycott the use > > | of Java. Who is willing to go that far for their beliefs? > > | > > | Like I mentioned earlier, dump Java and start supporting mono. It's > > | fully open and could easily rival Java. C# already fixes all the > > | nuisances and problems Java has. It is what Java wanted to be. > > > > Eric, > > ~Your claim that Mono "could easily rival Java" is rather general and > > quite unfounded. If you want to start a thread on Mono advocacy, then > > feel free, but the issue at hand is appropriately respecting licenses. > > ~There are people on the Debian development teams who have gone to > > great lengths to ensure that order and propriety are maintained within > > the Debian packaging system, including observance of and adherence to > > licenses. If you are going to flout adherence to licensing, please keep > > it to yourself and cease with this relativistic rhetoric. > > Nobody is mocking the license, we're just trying clarify what exactly it > permits. > > If you have a degree in IP law then please comment, if not then I'm not > interested in your ad hoc opinion of how to interpret the license or in > some lecture on moral ethics. > > I wish everyone would stop saying that mono is irrelevant. It is > absolutely relevant to this entire topic. We are arguing over licensing > issues. Mono is free and Java is not. C# is geared at superseding Java. C# is an attempt of Microsoft to take more controll over the program we write, and should be avoided if possible. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 08:33:52AM +0100, Colin Leroy wrote: > On 14 Dec 2004 at 09h12, Eric Gaumer wrote: > > Hi, > > > Won in what sense? He is not going to jail won, or deCSS is legal > > won? > > I guess what I'm asking is, can we legally use deCSS? > > DeCSS is legal - in Norway, where the trial took place. I don't know for > other places. Let's all move to Norway then :) Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 09:12:27AM -0800, Eric Gaumer wrote: > On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 10:51 +0100, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: > > Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:05:18 +0200, > > Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Em Dom, 2004-12-12 às 13:57 -0500, Michel Dänzer escreveu: > > >> On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 12:01 +0200, Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti > > >> Dutra wrote: > > >> >I already reported my problems trying alien on the IBM Java > > >> > SDK... perhaps someone would be willing to share it already > > >> > debianised? > > >> > > >> Does the licence allow redistribution (in modified form)? > > > > > > Good question... if I hadn't to write two reports now I'd read the > > > license, but I guess the answer is no. > > > > You cannot redistribute *even unmodified*! And you cannot install tools > > that intend to replace tools in the JDK (java, javac, javah, jar, > > jarsigner, etc)... Sun's, IBM's and Blackdown's JDK/JRE are free of > > charge but not free software *at all* > > > > Yes and we are not supposed to download free music either but I hear > there are folks who actually do this... > > This is the perfect excuse to dump Java and start using Mono. If already, please go for a real language instead. /me suggest objective caml, but then i am biased since i maintain it :) Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 01:57:32PM -0500, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 12:01 +0200, Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti > Dutra wrote: > > I already reported my problems trying alien on the IBM Java > > SDK... perhaps someone would be willing to share it already > > debianised? > > Does the licence allow redistribution (in modified form)? No idea, but i suppose that this is no problem as long as we don't store it on official debian disk space. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 12:01:40PM +0200, Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote: > I already reported my problems trying alien on the IBM Java > SDK... perhaps someone would be willing to share it already > debianised? I do, but this is illegal. Friendly, Sven Luther
Re: Java debs anyone?
> Hi, > > > Mono is free and Java is not. > > Can we please stop this troll now, or at least take it to where it > belongs, which would be debian-legal. Thanks. Strongly seconded. debian-legal would also be the right place to get an expert opinion on the license issues in terms of IP law. > Any developer wanting to use some non-provided language would know where > to get it and how to install anyway, so this issue is moot and only a > convenience one. As a convenience issue, there's precedents that may apply here (pine, anyone), and whoever feels like it could easily cook up a ibm-jdk-installer package without violating any license. But I'll stop feeding the trolls now. Michael
Re: Java debs anyone?
On 16 Dec 2004 at 12h12, Eric Gaumer wrote: Hi, > Mono is free and Java is not. Can we please stop this troll now, or at least take it to where it belongs, which would be debian-legal. Thanks. Any developer wanting to use some non-provided language would know where to get it and how to install anyway, so this issue is moot and only a convenience one. > C# is geared at superseding Java Who cares. People use whatever language they feel like fits their needs and it's certainly not Joe Random's task to decide whether Debian should dump any software based on its technical merits compared to some of its rivals. -- Colin Like any talented dog, it can do flips. Like any talented cow, it can do precision bitmap alignment.
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 12:31:02 -0800, Eric Gaumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wish everyone would stop saying that mono is irrelevant. It is > absolutely relevant to this entire topic. We are arguing over licensing > issues. Mono is free and Java is not. C# is geared at superseding Java. Since I know very little about programming in Java OR Mono, Google turns up this: http://www.go-mono.com/java.html I gather that Java emulation is a goal of some Mono developers, but it's not there yet, and given how hard it must be to support things like browser plugins, it may be a long time before it becomes a "drop-in" replacement. In my opinion end-user pressure is the only currency IBM and SUN have with their restrictive licenses... once there is a free solution available their licenses will become irrelevant. But if that takes another year or two that will seem a LONG time!
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 13:36 -0500, Barry Hawkins wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Eric Gaumer wrote: > [...] > | If you feel so passionate about free software then lets boycott the use > | of Java. Who is willing to go that far for their beliefs? > | > | Like I mentioned earlier, dump Java and start supporting mono. It's > | fully open and could easily rival Java. C# already fixes all the > | nuisances and problems Java has. It is what Java wanted to be. > > Eric, > ~Your claim that Mono "could easily rival Java" is rather general and > quite unfounded. If you want to start a thread on Mono advocacy, then > feel free, but the issue at hand is appropriately respecting licenses. > ~There are people on the Debian development teams who have gone to > great lengths to ensure that order and propriety are maintained within > the Debian packaging system, including observance of and adherence to > licenses. If you are going to flout adherence to licensing, please keep > it to yourself and cease with this relativistic rhetoric. Nobody is mocking the license, we're just trying clarify what exactly it permits. If you have a degree in IP law then please comment, if not then I'm not interested in your ad hoc opinion of how to interpret the license or in some lecture on moral ethics. I wish everyone would stop saying that mono is irrelevant. It is absolutely relevant to this entire topic. We are arguing over licensing issues. Mono is free and Java is not. C# is geared at superseding Java. I've written code in both and C# has improved upon many of Java's features. I've studied high level languages but I don't feel this is the place to discuss such topics. If you think Java can compete then that's your opinion and I'm not going to waste my time trying to change that. Eventually you will see things more clearly. Java still does some things better but C#/mono is still in it's infancy. -- Eric Gaumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Java debs anyone?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Eric Gaumer wrote: [...] | If you feel so passionate about free software then lets boycott the use | of Java. Who is willing to go that far for their beliefs? | | Like I mentioned earlier, dump Java and start supporting mono. It's | fully open and could easily rival Java. C# already fixes all the | nuisances and problems Java has. It is what Java wanted to be. Eric, ~Your claim that Mono "could easily rival Java" is rather general and quite unfounded. If you want to start a thread on Mono advocacy, then feel free, but the issue at hand is appropriately respecting licenses. ~There are people on the Debian development teams who have gone to great lengths to ensure that order and propriety are maintained within the Debian packaging system, including observance of and adherence to licenses. If you are going to flout adherence to licensing, please keep it to yourself and cease with this relativistic rhetoric. Sincerely, - -- Barry Hawkins All Things Computed site: www.alltc.com weblog: www.yepthatsme.com Registered Linux User #368650 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBwdWv7bZ6kUftWZwRArOiAKCIBhUkQviL/veACCXpNqKYo7zM9gCgwRWG 8p8dFc5hGSv8UQ1PM6BCLj4= =H4Jb -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 23:35 +0100, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: > Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:09:33 -0800, > Eric Gaumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is the License for IBM's Java SDK. It clearly states that you may > > redistribute this package. > > > > http://www-03.ibm.com/software/sla/sladb.nsf/b7db13a535a154a8862567310052aebd/b992cf38ad4d536e87256b9100626277?OpenDocument&Seq=1 > > ,[ /usr/local/IBMJava2-ppc-142/docs/jre/LICENSE_en.html ] > | You may not 1) use, copy, modify, or distribute the Program except as > | provided in this Agreement; 2) reverse assemble, reverse compile, or > | otherwise translate the Program except as specifically permitted by law > | without the possibility of contractual waiver; or 3) sublicense, rent, > | or lease the Program. > ` > "except as provided in this Agreement" Meaning what? If I manage a few hundred servers that all use Java then I have to download Java on each machine individually? I can't provide that package to my network via apt? Maybe not globally to the world but how about locally to all nodes on the network. This is silly. I could see if it were something I paid for. Then it would make sense that each machine obtain a legal licensed copy but we are talking about a free program (monetarily speaking). > Also, note that the JDK/JRE from IBM is written with Sun. The Sun > license prohibit to redistribute the JDK/JRE without their agreement. I > don't know why IBM would change the license! The truth of the matter is that nobody here seems to have legal expertise in the matter and therefore can't accurately determine what exactly the license allows for. I've contacted IBM on the matter. If we can't redistribute this binary package, maybe we can persuade them to provide a .deb along side of the RPM packages on their site. It's worth a try and wouldn't require much effort on their part. We'll see just how committed IBM is to the Linux end user. I'll be removing the links to the Java packages until we get some sort of definitive answer. Thanks to everyone who offered input here and sorry if you didn't get a chance to grab this package while it was there. Maybe if you were to contact IBM as well, it would help persuade them to offer a debianized version of Java. -- Eric Gaumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Java debs anyone?
Tue, 14 Dec 2004 08:09:33 -0800, Eric Gaumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is the License for IBM's Java SDK. It clearly states that you may > redistribute this package. > > http://www-03.ibm.com/software/sla/sladb.nsf/b7db13a535a154a8862567310052aebd/b992cf38ad4d536e87256b9100626277?OpenDocument&Seq=1 ,[ /usr/local/IBMJava2-ppc-142/docs/jre/LICENSE_en.html ] | You may not 1) use, copy, modify, or distribute the Program except as | provided in this Agreement; 2) reverse assemble, reverse compile, or | otherwise translate the Program except as specifically permitted by law | without the possibility of contractual waiver; or 3) sublicense, rent, | or lease the Program. ` Also, note that the JDK/JRE from IBM is written with Sun. The Sun license prohibit to redistribute the JDK/JRE without their agreement. I don't know why IBM would change the license! -- .''`. : :' :rnaud `. `' `-
Re: Java debs anyone?
On 14 Dec 2004 at 09h12, Eric Gaumer wrote: Hi, > Won in what sense? He is not going to jail won, or deCSS is legal > won? > I guess what I'm asking is, can we legally use deCSS? DeCSS is legal - in Norway, where the trial took place. I don't know for other places. -- Colin
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 17:51 +0100, Colin Leroy wrote: > On 14 Dec 2004 at 08h12, Eric Gaumer wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Please stop digressing to irrelevant tangents. > > > > How is this irrelevant. Does deCSS not violate licensing issues? If it > > wasn't for guys putting this stuff out there, we would be screwed when > > it came to watching DVD's on Linux. So now who is wrong? I paid good > > money for a DVD and I can't watch it? > > The case has been closed (and 'Dvd Jon' > won) exactly for the reason you mention - except it's stated > "reverse-engineering for interoperability is allowed". It may have been > different if the trial had taken place in the USA where they have > software patents and the DMCA. > Won in what sense? He is not going to jail won, or deCSS is legal won? I guess what I'm asking is, can we legally use deCSS? -- Eric Gaumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Java debs anyone?
On 14 Dec 2004 at 08h12, Eric Gaumer wrote: Hi, > > Please stop digressing to irrelevant tangents. > > How is this irrelevant. Does deCSS not violate licensing issues? If it > wasn't for guys putting this stuff out there, we would be screwed when > it came to watching DVD's on Linux. So now who is wrong? I paid good > money for a DVD and I can't watch it? The case has been closed (and 'Dvd Jon' won) exactly for the reason you mention - except it's stated "reverse-engineering for interoperability is allowed". It may have been different if the trial had taken place in the USA where they have software patents and the DMCA. -- Colin
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 10:43 -0500, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 22:13 -0800, Eric Gaumer wrote: > > On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 23:48 -0500, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > > > > Would you like free software licences to be respected or not? > > > > Java doesn't use a free software license. > > I know... my point is that if we want free software licences to be > respected (I do), then we should respect other licences as well. > > > Aside from religious aspects, it boils down to the fact that we need > > what we need. I have no problem paying for a product and sure, I'd like > > to see everything be open source but that's not likely to happen. In > > the mean time we do what we have to so we can function. It's a matter of > > survival not religion. > > So you're saying it's okay for corporations (or anybody, for that > matter) to violate free software licences if that's 'what they need'? Of course it's not alright but you would naive to think it isn't happening. That may be a poor attitude... "Everybody else is doing it so why not me" ... but it's just how it is, right or wrong. > > > What about the deCSS stuff? How many out there are using this? > > Please stop digressing to irrelevant tangents. How is this irrelevant. Does deCSS not violate licensing issues? If it wasn't for guys putting this stuff out there, we would be screwed when it came to watching DVD's on Linux. So now who is wrong? I paid good money for a DVD and I can't watch it? > > > If you feel so passionate about free software then lets boycott the use > > of Java. Who is willing to go that far for their beliefs? > > Sure, if you can't agree to the licence, just don't use it instead of > violating it and encouraging others to do the same. Okay I can understand this. Sure I'm playing the devils advocate here but in the real world this is the attitude. I think in this case it's more of a matter of lack of understanding. I NEVER thought to even regard the license. I guess it stems from using free software for so long that it never occurred to me to check if my motives were within the guidelines. So does the license permit you as the user to modify the package? If so, does it allow you to modify the package for another user? In other words... A friend calls and says he/she can't install this package. You log on and convert it to a .deb for them. Is this legal according to the license? Is it just a matter of redistributing the package? See the problem is that a license can't address every issue and when it tries, it becomes confusing as hell. So my question now becomes, to what extent can one go? Can I help a friend or can I even help myself? -- Eric Gaumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 08:09 -0800, Eric Gaumer wrote: > On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 10:43 -0500, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 22:13 -0800, Eric Gaumer wrote: > > > > > So perhaps I'm reading this wrong (I'm no lawyer) but it seems to me > > > that redistribution, modified or otherwise, is permitted providing the 5 > > > guidelines above. > > > > > > No? > > > > No. This is the COPYRIGHT file, the licence for IBM's proprietary stuff > > is in LICENSE_.html. > > > > This is the License for IBM's Java SDK. It clearly states that you may > redistribute this package. > > http://www-03.ibm.com/software/sla/sladb.nsf/b7db13a535a154a8862567310052aebd/b992cf38ad4d536e87256b9100626277?OpenDocument&Seq=1 > Okay maybe not so clearly... In fact it makes no sense to me. What are they saying? That you can redistribute part of the package proving your application depends on it? -- Eric Gaumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Tue, 2004-12-14 at 10:43 -0500, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 22:13 -0800, Eric Gaumer wrote: > > > So perhaps I'm reading this wrong (I'm no lawyer) but it seems to me > > that redistribution, modified or otherwise, is permitted providing the 5 > > guidelines above. > > > > No? > > No. This is the COPYRIGHT file, the licence for IBM's proprietary stuff > is in LICENSE_.html. > This is the License for IBM's Java SDK. It clearly states that you may redistribute this package. http://www-03.ibm.com/software/sla/sladb.nsf/b7db13a535a154a8862567310052aebd/b992cf38ad4d536e87256b9100626277?OpenDocument&Seq=1 -- Eric Gaumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 22:13 -0800, Eric Gaumer wrote: > On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 23:48 -0500, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > > > Would you like free software licences to be respected or not? > > Java doesn't use a free software license. I know... my point is that if we want free software licences to be respected (I do), then we should respect other licences as well. > Aside from religious aspects, it boils down to the fact that we need > what we need. I have no problem paying for a product and sure, I'd like > to see everything be open source but that's not likely to happen. In > the mean time we do what we have to so we can function. It's a matter of > survival not religion. So you're saying it's okay for corporations (or anybody, for that matter) to violate free software licences if that's 'what they need'? > What about the deCSS stuff? How many out there are using this? Please stop digressing to irrelevant tangents. > If you feel so passionate about free software then lets boycott the use > of Java. Who is willing to go that far for their beliefs? Sure, if you can't agree to the licence, just don't use it instead of violating it and encouraging others to do the same. On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 22:39 -0800, Eric Gaumer wrote: > > This is what comes with IBM's Java SDK > > Licensed Materials - Property of IBM [...] > So perhaps I'm reading this wrong (I'm no lawyer) but it seems to me > that redistribution, modified or otherwise, is permitted providing the 5 > guidelines above. > > No? No. This is the COPYRIGHT file, the licence for IBM's proprietary stuff is in LICENSE_.html. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer Libre software enthusiast| http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 10:39:19PM -0800, Eric Gaumer wrote: [...] } This is what comes with IBM's Java SDK } } Licensed Materials - Property of IBM } IBM(R) 32-bit SDK for Linux(R) on iSeries(TM) and pSeries(TM), Java(TM) 2 Technology Edition, Version 1.4.2 } IBM(R) 32-bit Runtime Environment for Linux(R) on iSeries(TM) and pSeries(TM), Java(TM) 2 Technology Edition, Version 1.4.2 } } (c) Copyright Sun Microsystems Inc, 1992-2003. All rights reserved. } (c) Copyright IBM Corporation, 1996-2004. All rights reserved. } } The Apache Software License, Version 1.1 } Copyright (c) 1999-2002 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved. } } This product is based in part on the work of the Independent JPEG group. } } The Java(tm) technology is owned and exclusively licensed by } Sun Microsystems Inc. Java is a trademark of Sun Microsystems Inc. in } the U.S. and other countries. [...] } And the Apache Software License, Version 1.1 [...] } "This product includes software developed by the Apache Software } Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)." [...] } So perhaps I'm reading this wrong (I'm no lawyer) but it seems to me } that redistribution, modified or otherwise, is permitted providing the 5 } guidelines above. } } No? No. Notice the line "This product *includes* software developed by the Apached Software Foundation" (emphasis mine). There is some Apache code in there, and they are disclosing that, but Apache is not a viral license and does not require that the entire system be released under the Apache license. A good chunk of the software is copyright Sun or IBM, and they have their own licensing terms for how you can use it or distribute it. } Eric Gaumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --Greg
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 13:57 -0500, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 12:01 +0200, Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti > Dutra wrote: > > I already reported my problems trying alien on the IBM Java > > SDK... perhaps someone would be willing to share it already > > debianised? > > Does the licence allow redistribution (in modified form)? This is what comes with IBM's Java SDK Licensed Materials - Property of IBM IBM(R) 32-bit SDK for Linux(R) on iSeries(TM) and pSeries(TM), Java(TM) 2 Technology Edition, Version 1.4.2 IBM(R) 32-bit Runtime Environment for Linux(R) on iSeries(TM) and pSeries(TM), Java(TM) 2 Technology Edition, Version 1.4.2 (c) Copyright Sun Microsystems Inc, 1992-2003. All rights reserved. (c) Copyright IBM Corporation, 1996-2004. All rights reserved. The Apache Software License, Version 1.1 Copyright (c) 1999-2002 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved. This product is based in part on the work of the Independent JPEG group. The Java(tm) technology is owned and exclusively licensed by Sun Microsystems Inc. Java is a trademark of Sun Microsystems Inc. in the U.S. and other countries. US Govt Users Restricted Rights - Use duplication or disclosure restricted by GSA ADP Schedule Contract with IBM Corp. And the Apache Software License, Version 1.1 Version 1.1 Copyright (c) 2000 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. 3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by the Apache Software Foundation (http://www.apache.org/)." Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, if and wherever such third-party acknowledgments normally appear. 4. The names "Apache" and "Apache Software Foundation" must not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without prior written permission. For written permission, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] 5. Products derived from this software may not be called "Apache", nor may "Apache" appear in their name, without prior written permission of the Apache Software Foundation. == So perhaps I'm reading this wrong (I'm no lawyer) but it seems to me that redistribution, modified or otherwise, is permitted providing the 5 guidelines above. No? -- Eric Gaumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 23:48 -0500, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 09:12 -0800, Eric Gaumer wrote: > > On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 10:51 +0100, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: > > > Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:05:18 +0200, > > > Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Em Dom, 2004-12-12 às 13:57 -0500, Michel Dänzer escreveu: > > > >> On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 12:01 +0200, Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti > > > >> Dutra wrote: > > > >> > I already reported my problems trying alien on the IBM Java > > > >> > SDK... perhaps someone would be willing to share it already > > > >> > debianised? > > > >> > > > >> Does the licence allow redistribution (in modified form)? > > > > > > > > Good question... if I hadn't to write two reports now I'd read > > > > the > > > > license, but I guess the answer is no. > > > > > > You cannot redistribute *even unmodified*! And you cannot install tools > > > that intend to replace tools in the JDK (java, javac, javah, jar, > > > jarsigner, etc)... Sun's, IBM's and Blackdown's JDK/JRE are free of > > > charge but not free software *at all* > > > > Yes and we are not supposed to download free music either but I hear > > there are folks who actually do this... > > Would you like free software licences to be respected or not? Java doesn't use a free software license. Aside from religious aspects, it boils down to the fact that we need what we need. I have no problem paying for a product and sure, I'd like to see everything be open source but that's not likely to happen. In the mean time we do what we have to so we can function. It's a matter of survival not religion. What about the deCSS stuff? How many out there are using this? If you feel so passionate about free software then lets boycott the use of Java. Who is willing to go that far for their beliefs? Like I mentioned earlier, dump Java and start supporting mono. It's fully open and could easily rival Java. C# already fixes all the nuisances and problems Java has. It is what Java wanted to be. -- Eric Gaumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 09:12 -0800, Eric Gaumer wrote: > On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 10:51 +0100, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: > > Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:05:18 +0200, > > Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Em Dom, 2004-12-12 às 13:57 -0500, Michel Dänzer escreveu: > > >> On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 12:01 +0200, Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti > > >> Dutra wrote: > > >> >I already reported my problems trying alien on the IBM Java > > >> > SDK... perhaps someone would be willing to share it already > > >> > debianised? > > >> > > >> Does the licence allow redistribution (in modified form)? > > > > > > Good question... if I hadn't to write two reports now I'd read the > > > license, but I guess the answer is no. > > > > You cannot redistribute *even unmodified*! And you cannot install tools > > that intend to replace tools in the JDK (java, javac, javah, jar, > > jarsigner, etc)... Sun's, IBM's and Blackdown's JDK/JRE are free of > > charge but not free software *at all* > > Yes and we are not supposed to download free music either but I hear > there are folks who actually do this... Would you like free software licences to be respected or not? -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer Libre software enthusiast| http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 10:51 +0100, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: > Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:05:18 +0200, > Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Em Dom, 2004-12-12 às 13:57 -0500, Michel Dänzer escreveu: > >> On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 12:01 +0200, Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti > >> Dutra wrote: > >> > I already reported my problems trying alien on the IBM Java > >> > SDK... perhaps someone would be willing to share it already > >> > debianised? > >> > >> Does the licence allow redistribution (in modified form)? > > > > Good question... if I hadn't to write two reports now I'd read the > > license, but I guess the answer is no. > > You cannot redistribute *even unmodified*! And you cannot install tools > that intend to replace tools in the JDK (java, javac, javah, jar, > jarsigner, etc)... Sun's, IBM's and Blackdown's JDK/JRE are free of > charge but not free software *at all* > Yes and we are not supposed to download free music either but I hear there are folks who actually do this... This is the perfect excuse to dump Java and start using Mono. -- Eric Gaumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Java debs anyone?
Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:05:18 +0200, Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Em Dom, 2004-12-12 às 13:57 -0500, Michel Dänzer escreveu: >> On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 12:01 +0200, Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti >> Dutra wrote: >> >I already reported my problems trying alien on the IBM Java >> > SDK... perhaps someone would be willing to share it already >> > debianised? >> >> Does the licence allow redistribution (in modified form)? > > Good question... if I hadn't to write two reports now I'd read the > license, but I guess the answer is no. You cannot redistribute *even unmodified*! And you cannot install tools that intend to replace tools in the JDK (java, javac, javah, jar, jarsigner, etc)... Sun's, IBM's and Blackdown's JDK/JRE are free of charge but not free software *at all* -- .''`. : :' :rnaud `. `' `-
Re: Java debs anyone?
Em Sun, 12 Dec 2004 16:50:21 +0100, Eric Gaumer escreveu: > deb ftp://corp.primenetwork.net/debian prime contrib deb-src > ftp://corp.primenetwork.net/debian prime contrib > > apt-get install ibmjava2-sdk-ppc Thank you very much! -- Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Maringá, PR, BRASIL+55 (44) 3025 6253 http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/ +55 (44) 8803 1729 Soli Deo Gloria! +55 (11) 9406 7191
Re: Java debs anyone?
Em Dom, 2004-12-12 às 13:57 -0500, Michel Dänzer escreveu: > On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 12:01 +0200, Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti > Dutra wrote: > > I already reported my problems trying alien on the IBM Java > > SDK... perhaps someone would be willing to share it already > > debianised? > > Does the licence allow redistribution (in modified form)? Good question... if I hadn't to write two reports now I'd read the license, but I guess the answer is no. -- Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Maputo, Moçambique+258 (1) 360 360 ap 404 http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/ +258 (82) 097 281 Maringá, PR, BRASIL Soli Deo Gloria!
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 12:01 +0200, Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote: > I already reported my problems trying alien on the IBM Java > SDK... perhaps someone would be willing to share it already > debianised? Does the licence allow redistribution (in modified form)? -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | Debian (powerpc), X and DRI developer Libre software enthusiast| http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=daenzer
Re: Java debs anyone?
Ce jour Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Gregory Seidman a dit: > On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 12:01:40PM +0200, Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti > Dutra wrote: > } I already reported my problems trying alien on the IBM Java > } SDK... perhaps someone would be willing to share it already > } debianised? > > I will keep this up for a week. I don't have great bandwidth or > connectivity, but you should be able to grab it. Note that it is https, not > http. > > https://www.anthropohedron.net/~gss/ibmjava2-sdk_1.4.1-1_powerpc.deb > > } Leandro Guimar??es Faria Corcete Dutra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > --Greg thanks for this. i was going to do one up for the sun java, but the source tree is a total freaking mess, and HUGE. your b/w isn't too bad actually, i've seen worse (and from some supposedly high bandwidth sites (i'm getting a steady 55-65 KB/s here). > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Cold pizza and cold coffee, second best thing to cold pizza and warm beer. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Java debs anyone?
> I already reported my problems trying alien on the IBM Java > SDK... perhaps someone would be willing to share it already > debianised? > deb ftp://corp.primenetwork.net/debian prime contrib deb-src ftp://corp.primenetwork.net/debian prime contrib apt-get install ibmjava2-sdk-ppc I also have eclipse compiled for Linux/GTK/PPC if anyone is interested. No Debian packages but you can just drop this in place as if it were downloaded from eclipse.org. It works well and has some features that the x86 binary on eclipse.org doesn't have. The CDT (C Dev Tools) are also included in my binary. http://www.egaumer.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=index&req=viewdownload&cid=2 -- Eric Gaumer
Re: Java debs anyone?
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 12:01:40PM +0200, Leandro Guimaraens Faria Corsetti Dutra wrote: } I already reported my problems trying alien on the IBM Java } SDK... perhaps someone would be willing to share it already } debianised? I will keep this up for a week. I don't have great bandwidth or connectivity, but you should be able to grab it. Note that it is https, not http. https://www.anthropohedron.net/~gss/ibmjava2-sdk_1.4.1-1_powerpc.deb } Leandro Guimar??es Faria Corcete Dutra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --Greg
Java debs anyone?
I already reported my problems trying alien on the IBM Java SDK... perhaps someone would be willing to share it already debianised? -- Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete Dutra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Maringá, PR, BRASIL+55 (44) 3025 6253 http://br.geocities.com./lgcdutra/ +55 (44) 8803 1729 Soli Deo Gloria! +55 (11) 9406 7191
