Re: Re: [rock-sm] 2005011819133829233 fake new

hi,

indeed, i spent some time evaluating how to include some jdk/jre into rock 
linux.

On Wednesday 19 January 2005 10:55, Stefan Fiedler wrote:
> > [...]
> Let's say we'd distribute the Sun JDK over the download mirrors.
> I do think that B.i, B.ii and C.i would apply because the file archive
> (.tbz2) would be complete and unmodified, and we'd have other programs that
> need the JDK (e.g. OpenOffice). The term "bundled" is somehow fuzzy,
> though. Distributing the JDK in binary form seems to contradict B.i and
> C.i. I don't see a problem with C.v as the JDK package would have a license
> tag. B.iii may be a definitive showstopper, but I am not a lawyer.
the blackdown jdk/jre is less restrictive in it's license than the original 
sun jdk/jre as i undestand, that's why it's availible and even distributed 
mirror-wide in gentoo. go check the next gentoo mirrors 'distfiles' folder, 
wait for the quadrillion files in the one folder to load, and you'll find the 
exact file we would mirror (not .tar.bz2, but .bin).

> The easy solution (in legal terms) would be to let the Rock DBK users
> download the JDK manually and not distribute source/binary JDK packages.
> The additional work for DBK users would be small since the JDK package is
> built/installed quickly.
i want to be able to build a special distribution for J2EE-like server 
environments. this can't be against what sun wants ;-)

> Btw how do other distributions handle the Sun JDK?
see above. if they want to sue us, it will get hard. we still do not create 
distributions including java (we could 'O' the package so it's not even built 
in a reference/full build) and 'distribute' them as in 'sell' them (i think 
that's where they'd get really angry).

greetz,

fake