>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> First, I find this a curious phrasing. "asserts it's
Richard> right"? On what basis? Should we take this assertion at
Richard> face value? If this is a right that Sun granted, it
Richard> would be nice to say so explicitly. They say they have
Richard> this right "as a Sun JDK 1.1 source code licencess". Are
Richard> the terms of this source code license public?
As part of becoming source licencees, the various members of the
Blackdown java linux team were required to sign a seperate licence.
The text of this licence is no longer publically available as Sun now
licenses under the SCL and considers Java 1.1 EOL. The orginal
licence says may not must, so this an assertion of a right not the
fulfilment of an obligation.
2.3 Binary Distribution Sublicense. Sublicensor herewith grants
to Sublicensee the royalty-free right to distribute the Linux
Ports in binary form, provided that: (i) the Linux Ports of the
JDK is not integrated, bundled, combined or associated in any way
with a product, (ii) there is no charge associated with
distribution of the Linux Ports of the JDK, (iii) the Linux Ports
are fully compatible with the applicable JCK and Sublicensed
Software provided to Sublicensee by Sublicensor hereunder; and
(iv) the Linux Ports are distributed subject to a license
agreement containing terms and conditions substantially similar to
those included in the binary code licenses required by Sun for
distribution of the binary code for the JDK and JRE respectively,
as amended from time to time by sun. Notwithstanding the above
restrictions, Sun will consider on a case by case basis,
authorizing distribution of the Linux Ports in binary form on
CD-ROM as part of a collection of other Linux related software,
provided that any fees charged for such CD-ROM distribution are
reasonably calculated to cover costs of production and
distribution only.
It is the above clause that permits the distrbution by Blackdown of
both the jdk1.1 and j2se technologies.
Richard> Second, does the packaging implement clause (iii)?
Yes.
Richard> Third, does this license amendment affect only clause 1?
Richard> It does not say the new terms are the entire agreement.
Richard> Which clauses would we still be bound by, exactly? I see
Richard> several terms in the other licenses that would be
Richard> unacceptable.
I'm happy to alter the language to reflect that as long as an entity
*only* engages in redistribution, they are excempt from several (but
not all) of the other clauses. Which ones, other than 1(vi) in the
JRE addditional terms, bother you specificly?
--
Stephen
"A duck!"
