> > Yes, I do have explict permission from Sun.=20 > > Can you clarify this? Debian requires permission to modify, distribute > and distribute modified versions, not just permission to use. Also, > there can't be any limitations of those freedoms for certain purposes > (like restriction of the use or sale for profit). > > Best would be a clear license statement from Sun saying that the derived > work you made based on their code has all the freedoms mentioned above. > I can ask Sun for this if it's not convenient for you.
I think I'm OK. The permission agreement I signed says in its entirety (sorry that pasting from acroread doesn't preserve format) TECHNOLOGY LICENSE FROM SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. TO DOUG LEA Whereas Doug Lea desires to utilize certain Java Software technologies in the util.concurrent technology; and Whereas Sun Microsystems, Inc. ( Sun ) desires that Doug Lea utilize certain Java Software technologies in the util.concurrent technology; Therefore the parties agree as follows. Java Software technologies means classes/java/util/ArrayList.java, and classes/java/util/HashMap.java. The Java Software technologies are Copyright (c) 1994-2001 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All rights reserved. Sun hereby grants Doug Lea a non-exclusive, worldwide, non-transferrable license to use and distribute the Java Software technologies as a part of a larger work in source and binary forms, with or without modification, provided that the following conditions are met: -Neither the name of or trademarks of Sun may be used to endorse or promote products derived from the Java Software technology without specific prior written permission. -Redistributions of source or binary code must be accompanied by the following notice and disclaimers: Portions copyright Sun Microsystems, Inc. Used with kind permission. This software is provided "AS IS," without a warranty of any kind. ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT, ARE HEREBY EXCLUDED. SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS LICENSORS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES SUFFERED BY LICENSEE AS A RESULT OF USING, MODIFYING OR DISTRIBUTING THE SOFTWARE OR ITS DERIVATIVES. IN NO EVENT WILL SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. OR ITS LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOST REVENUE, PROFIT OR DATA, OR FOR DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, HOWEVER CAUSED AND REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE SOFTWARE, EVEN IF SUN MICROSYSTEMS, INC. HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. You acknowledge that Software is not designed, licensed or intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility. signed [Doug Lea] dated > Well, I'm not holding my breath for a truely open source Java any time > soon, but I hope they will refine their license enough to let others at > least distribute their JRE and JDK. The current license has several > restrictions of distributors which are too hard (or legally troublesome) > for groups like Debian to meet (examples are forbidding distribution of > alternative implementations of the core Java classes and a requirement > of indemnificaion from any damages suffered by downloaders). > Right. The key is for Sun to keep their legitimate desire for people not to call non-compliant implementations "Java" distinct from their distribution licenses. Partially liberating the TCK (compliance test suites) was a pretty big step towards this, so I truly am optimistic. But it is very slow going. I should also have mentioned that dl.util.concurrent is on its way out. As you may have noticed on the intro page, we are in the midst of putting this stuff in Java proper (as java.util.concurrent) for release 1.5. But the package will also be available separately on the same terms as always. There will be a major update hopefully around January so the the APIs will match. For more details, see. http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/concurrency-interest/index.html -Doug
