On Aug 3, 2012, at 3:05 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Hi again, > > is this question so hard to answer and has too many possible effects > that nobody wants to > or so trivial that nobody has time to answer ? > > JavaMail itself does contain another License.txt, I have copied the > content of that License.txt to pastebin: > http://pastebin.com/C3tW6D5u
I can't see how either the BINARY Code License Agreement (referenced below), or the Entitlement for Software/Software License Agreement (referenced above) would be interpreted as open source licenses. So, no. I wouldn't treat them as equivalent to an open source license like CDDL. You should look at http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javamail/index.html for alternate sources of JavaMail (e.g. javamail project, the java.net maven repo, etc) under the CDDL/GPL license. Alternatively, the Geronimo project has an ALv2 licensed JavaMail implementation. --kevan > > Thanks! > Sebastian > > 2012/8/1 [email protected] <[email protected]>: >> Hi, >> >> all recent Java downloads for example java-mail-api 1.4.5 >> (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javasebusiness/downloads/java-archive-downloads-eeplat-419426.html#javamail-1.4.5-oth-JPR) >> require you to agree to the Oracle Binary Code License Agreement >> >> This is the "Oracle Binary Code License Agreement" >> http://download.oracle.com/otn-pub/java/licenses/OTN_JavaEE_Legacy_Binary-Code-License_30Jan2012.txt >> >> Can this license be treated equal to the CDDL ? >> >> Thanks! >> Sebastian >> >> -- >> Sebastian Wagner >> https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > > > > -- > Sebastian Wagner > https://twitter.com/#!/dead_lock > http://www.openmeetings.de > http://www.webbase-design.de > http://www.wagner-sebastian.com > [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >
