sun-java5 dlj license needs clarifications

Another perl of this "fine" license:

Sun also grants you a (...) limited license to reproduce and distribute the
Software, (...) provided that: (...) the Software is distributed with your Operating System, and such distribution is solely for the purposes of running Programs under the control of your Operating System and designing, developing and testing Programs to be run under the control of your Operating System;

Ubuntu hasn't configured libgcj to run in conjunction (meaning at the same time) as Sun's Java.

The purpose of this clause in the license is to prevent people from distributing half of Sun's Java and half of some other Java implementation.

Can you install sunjava anda gcj at the same time? yes.
Can you run at the same time one java program in gcj and java? yes.
Can you combine both? yes, nothing prevents so.

 status Rejected

The new DJL does allow it.

This is false rejection. Those quotes are from the new DJL. Please don't act like a spoiled brat that saw his new toy removed.

False rejection.

I'm not a lawyer, neither am I on the Ubuntu development team, so I don't know the exact legal status. However, at best this is unconfirmed, until someone confirms or rejects the issue.

Also, to maintain a respectful atmosphere, please be sure to follow http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct/
Conversations in bugs are done by humans, so please bear this in mind.

At worst, gcj would be removed... and I don't think that would cause many complaints, as I don't think it worked all that well anyway.

Also, I kind of agree with Gary - the Ubuntu dev team more than likely knows better than us (commentators / users) what the licensing issues are, and are more than likely better equipped to deal with issues such as these in an informed manner. I, at least, trust thier judgement and have no issues believing that the correct legal choice will be made when the time for release comes.

Oh really? Do you _trust_ them that much based on exactly what? Let's take Debian, for instance. Do you know that debian-legal is quite freaked out with what happened? No one asked anything, and the only comment there is is a very dry 'yes' from the DPL that tells zero information about anything.

In Debian, never has such a problematic package entered the repository so fast without even a short public discussion.

Things are quite far from clear. I can believe more in a "benefit of doubt" from Ubuntu towards Sun, but there's no doubt now. The license is as clear as water.

please see http://download.java.net/dlj/DLJ-v1.1.txt for explanations; there is ongoing work to make things clearer.

Gary, I'm sure that if not being able to distribute GCJ is Sun's intention that Sun will have no problem coming forward and asking Ubuntu to remove 'sun-java5-jre'. (Ubuntu and Debian both would of course drop sun-java long before dropping GCJ).

Somehow, given last weeks PR exposé by Sun; I think this is unlikely to be the intent of the license.

1.5.0-07 now contains the FAQ as part of the license file and should clarify your issues.

Since when does this make for a "fix"? The FAQ itself says its worthless.

Cyclops schrieb:
> Since when does this make for a "fix"? The FAQ itself says its
> worthless.
>
>
where do you find that?

In the fscking FAQ http://download.java.net/dlj/DLJ-FAQ-v1.2.txt right in the first paragraph.

If they really intended to address the difficulties they would update the license, not the FAQ.

It's disgusting to see people fooled like this.

Cyclops: please read http://www.ubuntu.com/community/conduct and adhere
to these basic guidelines.

Dennis: now that is a nice excuse! People disagree (without any kind of ground, much less a solid one) with me and as such I can't consider them fooled? Neat. I guess you should read the COC and understand it, not merely memorize its URL.

People, get this: Sun's poising itself with this license to assume absolutely no responsabilities. Whenever, in an Enterprise environment, you have a problem you can break down to Java (and prove) if it's not the Java that's distributed on java.sun.com, you're so out of luck...

At the company I work at, IBM and HP are fighting about some java related problems (one says it's Java, the other the OS). Sun can't even be annointed with a responsability.

This JDL has serious responsability issues, serious indemnification issues, and dubious distribution conditions.

Pretending they're not dubious but instead very clear, based on a FAQ and license that say the FAQ is worthless, only the license is valid, is either gullibility or trying to fool the rest of the world.

Cyclops: Can you recommend how we should move forward with this?

Paul:
ideal: drop sun-java until Sun solves the issues.
good enough: publicly campaign Sun to solve the issues or drop sun-java if unresolved for a certain period.
so so: publicly campaign Sun to solve the issues

Since ideal is sometimes the enemy of good, a good compromise seems, to me, to be the "good enough" option.