> Looks like we can go back to the original system where-by the installer > only downloads the JRE on-demand (I will refrain from the "I told you > so!"). Can whoever switched over to the current two-installer scheme > please put it back the way it was? > > Thanks, > > Ian. [snip]
As already stated, from the correspondence I had with Sun legal advisors on 17-19 July, we can only do this if the jre is not available on a publicly-visible link (and this is also mentioned in your quoted reply). Since www.freenetproject.org/snapshots is pretty damn public, that would seem to fail the clause Quotes were: "It must be bundled with the your application. You cannot distribute it standalone on your website", "You are not allowed to host the JRE by itself. If your download bundle includes the JRE, it must also contain added value. You can either bundle the JRE with your app and host that bundle for download, or unbundle the JRE from your app and host only your app", " >> how can we possibly ensure that the end-user doesn't use the >> JRE for running other Java programs? I guess that would be a license flow down that "protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms of this Agreement". If the developer puts it in the license that the JRE is only to be used to run the Developer's Programs, then the Developer's Licensee's will be obligated to use it that way" I will continue to use the current download system but possibly modify the bare freenet-webinstall to automatically download freenet-java-webinstall if java cannot be found, rather than simply prompt the user that they should download freenet-java-webinstall. But there's not much mileage there so I probably won't. d _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
