Bernd Kreimeier wrote:
>
> John Keiser writes:
> > What we're left with is this: the original *program* is freely
> > redistributable, but a *derivative work* is freely redistributable
> > under two conditions: it must contain 60% or more of the original
> > code, and it must be a JDK 1.1 compiler.
>
> There are days when I think that, despite me freezing
> and starving, RMS is just a 100% right.
[disclaimer: IANAL, and I haven't scrutinized the license in detail]
A consensus seems to have been reached on slashdot (at least, as much of
a consensus as is *ever* acheived on slashdot) that the 60% clause only
applies to patents. The definition of "Program" includes modifications
made by yourself, so you *ARE* free to distribute modified versions
without restriction. IN ADDITION, IF your modified code (1) is a Java
compiler according to the JLS published by Sun, AND (2) includes 60% of
the original code (whatever that means), you have rights to any IBM
patents inherent in the Jikes code.
Even the GPL doesn't grant patent rights!
This is a good license in almost all respects, AFAICT. The only
"non-free" thing about it is the termination clause... which I hope
enough people will point out to IBM to make them change it. Free
software should not be able to be unfreed, ever, no matter what.
Stuart.
