On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Michael Emmel wrote:
Ah... just being safe. There is nothing in the license agreement
that I can see that stops someone who signed it from doing a
clean room implementation as long as the Sun source is not
referenced. Correct?
..darcy
I recently posted a
On Feb 17, 1999, Alex Nicolaou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Now, you've done something cool, and you want to give it to someone. In
this case, the license binds you to two main restrictions. The first is
that code in the JDK that you've modified must be returned to Sun for
inclusion in the
On Feb 18, 1999, Alex Nicolaou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you only want to use your changes for research purposes - for
students studying the ideas you have, for example, or as part of a
thesis - you're not stuck. If you want to distribute the working code to
end-users who aren't
On Feb 18, 1999, Alexander Nicolaou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In other words, if the transitive closure of all your users and their
users are all using the software for research, you can distribute it
freely and without payment or validation by Sun.
Well, if Sun's license really allows me to
Do downloading JDK source code (it seems to be ow available without all
these complicated paperwork) will taint me as far as classpath is
concerned ?
I do understand that I should not look at sun's classes while writing
for classpath, but they are available anyway in std distribution -
question
Artur Biesiadowski wrote:
Do downloading JDK source code (it seems to be ow available without all
these complicated paperwork) will taint me as far as classpath is
concerned ?
IANAL, and I haven't read the license. However, personally I'll be
avoiding it like the plague. My *guess
Artur Biesiadowski wrote:
And second question - can somebody summarize the license for me -for me
it is lawyers garbage.
This is my interpretation of the license as nearly as I understand it,
without legal background or background in the laws of california nor any
laws of the united states.
And they really can't make it GPL now, after lots of companies have
forked over lots of cash to get in on the Java thing.
Sun owns the copyright to the JDK. They can release it under any
terms that they so desire, including the GPL.
In the case of Jini at least (I don't know the
In the case of Jini at least (I don't know the specifics of the
JDK) the royalty is something like $0.10. So if you sell
100 copies of your software Sun makes $1.
quipAre you using Microsoft Calculator again?/quip
:-)
Arcy Smith
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: JDK source code
In the case of Jini at least (I don't know the specifics of the
JDK) the royalty is something like $0.10. So if you sell
100 copies of your software Sun makes $1.
quipAre you using Microsoft Calculator again?/quip
:-)
On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, D'Arcy Smith wrote:
And they really can't make it GPL now, after lots of companies have
forked over lots of cash to get in on the Java thing.
Sun owns the copyright to the JDK. They can release it under any
terms that they so desire, including the GPL.
If the
-Original Message-
On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, D'Arcy Smith wrote:
And they really can't make it GPL now, after lots of companies have
forked over lots of cash to get in on the Java thing.
Sun owns the copyright to the JDK. They can release it under any
terms that they so
Ah... just being safe. There is nothing in the license agreement
that I can see that stops someone who signed it from doing a
clean room implementation as long as the Sun source is not
referenced. Correct?
..darcy
I recently posted a suggestion to javalobby that Sun make periodice
Do downloading JDK source code (it seems to be ow available without all
these complicated paperwork) will taint me as far as classpath is
concerned ?
The source bundled distributed with the JDK is ok to download. I'm not
familiar with the new source pacakge or its license. However, looking
14 matches
Mail list logo
