Paul Fisher wrote:
I'm sorry, I just can't help responding. But let's not turn this into a
huge runaway thread - the mailing list is, after all, about Classpath,
not about the JDK.
> You are under no obligation to assign copyright to the FSF for
> modifications to Classpath. We only require assignments for code
> which will be part of the distribution that the FSF releases. This is
> for legal protection. All code which is assigned to the FSF and can
> be considered a distinct work (that is, not a modification to existing
> copylefted code) can be released under terms of the author's
> choosing. The FSF will never distribute the author's code under
> non-free terms, but the original author may do so.
As far as I can see from the Sun license:
You are under no oblication to assign copyright to Sun for
modifications to Java 2. Sun only requires compatibility for
code which will be part of the distribution that Sun releases. This is
for legal protection and the protection of the Java(tm) brand. All
code which is a modification of Java2 and can be considered a distinct
work can be released under terms of the author's choosing. Sun will
never distribute the author's code under terms other than the
community source license, but the original author may do so.
So what's the difference? None with regards to copyright assignment.
None with regards to what you can do with your mods. The main difference
between your paragraph and mine are that I've suggested that Sun wants
to protect the Java(tm) brand, wheras presumably all the FSF wants to do
is sue people who try to violate the LGPL on Classpath.
> > Overall, aside from actually making the source GPL, I can't see what
> > more they could have done to make the license more friendly.
>
> They could have released the JDK as free software. Sun requires
> payment of royalties for certain types of distribution, and unlike
> Jini, they require royalties for internal deployment of modified
> copies of the JDK.
Requiring these royalties doesn't make the software 'not free' in the
FSF sense. According to the FSF's own WWW pages:
Free software is software that comes with
permission for anyone to use, copy, and distribute,
either verbatim or with modifications, either
gratis or for a fee. In particular, this means that
source code must be available. ``If it's not source,
it's not software.''
(from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html)
By this definition, the Java 2 source release is almost
``free software''. You "may use, copy, and distribute it...with
modifications...for a fee". However, you're restricted on what
modifications you can make (you have to pass Java certification
to be able to distribute the end result after paying your fees).
So it is almost, but not quite, ``free software''. Technically,
it must be ``Proprietary Software'':
Proprietary software is software that is not
free or semi-free. Its use, redistribution or
modification is prohibited, or requires you to
ask for permission, or is restricted so much that
you effectively can't do it freely.
(also from the same URL)
It's proprietary because you could consider the restrictions
on modifications to be "restricted so much that you effectively
can't do it freely". If you consider the restrictions not to
restrict you too much - that is, that it's OK for Sun to make
you pass the compatibility tests - then it is free software. But
I think that the FSF's pages imply pretty strongly that this
is too restricted; you effectively are both restricted in your
modifications and are effectively required to get permission to
distribute your modifications.
So, in some sense I agree with you - Java 2 is not free software.
However, it isn't the royalties that make it not free, it's the
restrictions on what you can do with it. The wording in the WWW page
quoted above is very explicit about allowing a fee, and in general the
FSF is very clear that free does not mean zero cost.
> > In other words, as far as I can see, the community source license is
> > every bit as good and free and altruistic as GPL.
>
> This is certainly not the case. Royalties are against *everything*
> that free software stands for. It's OK to charge a fee for free
> software, because once you have the software, you always have the
> freedom to copy and change the software; however, royalties restrict
> your redistribution rights -- the software still has an owner.
That's not how I read the paragraph quoted above. It's very specific
about allowing a fee to be charged for distribution rights - in other
words, allowing for royalties. Royalties or lack thereof don't affect
your liberty to modify the software after you've received it. *That* is
what the FSF says free software is all about - improving the software
and returning those improvements to the community. Charging to do so is
expressly permitted. Can you show me the error in my interpretation of
what's written?
alex
