On Mar 28, 6:58 am, Peter Becker <peter.becker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> JodaStephen wrote:
> > On Mar 27, 11:31 pm, Neal Gafter <neal.gaf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Mar 27, 6:17 am, JodaStephen <jodastep...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> "2006.10.24 - 7. Nothing in the licensing terms will prevent open
> >>> source projects from creating and distributing their own compatible
> >>> open source implementations of Java SE 6, using standard open source
> >>> licenses. (Yes, you can create your own open source implementation of
> >>> Java SE 6 if you really want to. But we're also doing everything we
> >>> can to make it easy for you to use the original RI sources!
> >>> Seehttp://jdk6.dev.java.net.) "http://jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=270
>
> >> It isn't the licensing terms preventing Harmony from producing a
> >> compatible implementation; if Harmony gets a license, they are free to
> >> do so. It is Harmony's finances that make them unable to pay the
> >> necessary fee to become a licensee.
>
> > Nope. Apache is a "Qualified Not For Profit" as described in the JSPA
> > legal agreement (section 1.18). They are fully entitled to obtain the
> > testing kit for $free, and the offer Sun did make was for $free. The
> > problem is with the additional "Field of use" terms added to the
> > testing kit license that infect the tested code and make it not open
> > source. See the explanation in pictures -
> >http://www.jroller.com/scolebourne/entry/sun_apache_ip_in_pictures-
> > for how this was achieved.
>
> > BTW, Apache successfully implement 25 other JSRs, with $free access to
> > the testing kits. Why is this JSR so special?
>
> Because not having that FOU clause would mean someone could take a
> stripped-down version of J2SE and use it in areas where J2ME resides
> nowadays.
>
If that's the case, how can the OpenJDK be released under the GPL v2 ?
If I'm not mistaken, this license prevents any restrictions on Field
of Use.
If OpenJDK passes the TCK, it must mean that Sun has licensed the TCK
to the OpenJDK project under a less restrictive license?
> Not that I agree with that approach, but I think the reason for all this
> is not the Harmony project by itself, but Sun trying to defend their
> business model on the ME side.
>
> Peter
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
