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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Fiedler" <[email protected]>
To: "ROCK Development Mailing List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: [rock-devel] Re: [rock-sm] 2005011819133829233 fake new


>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Efant" <[email protected]>
> To: "ROCK Development Mailing List" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 12:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [rock-devel] Re: [rock-sm] 2005011819133829233 fake new
>
>
> > On Tue, 2005-01-18 at 19:22 +0100, Benjamin Schieder wrote:
> >
> > > Wasn't there some problem with the license that prevented us from
> > > packaging java? Has that changed recently or am I missing something?
> >
> > The license doesn't permit redistribution or repackaging:
> >
> > "B. License to Distribute Software. Subject to the terms and conditions
> > of this Agreement and restrictions and exceptions set forth in the
> > Software README file, including, but not limited to the Java Technology
> > Restrictions of these Supplemental Terms, Sun grants you a
> > non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without fees to
> > reproduce and distribute the Software, provided that (i) you distribute
> > the Software complete and unmodified and only bundled as part of, and
> > for the sole purpose of running, your Programs, (ii) the Programs add
> > significant and primary functionality to the Software, (iii) you do not
> > distribute additional software intended to replace any component(s) of
> > the Software, (iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or
> > notices contained in the Software, (v) you only distribute the Software
> > subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests consistent
> > with the terms contained in this Agreement, and (vi) you agree to defend
> > and indemnify Sun and its licensors from and against any damages, costs,
> > liabilities, settlement amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys'
> > fees) incurred in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any
> > third party that arises or results from the use or distribution of any
> > and all Programs and/or Software."
> >
> > "C. License to Distribute Redistributables. Subject to the terms and
> > conditions of this Agreement and restrictions and exceptions set forth
> > in the Software README file, including but not limited to the Java
> > Technology Restrictions of these Supplemental Terms, Sun grants you a
> > non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited license without fees to
> > reproduce and distribute those files specifically identified as
> > redistributable in the Software "README" file ("Redistributables")
> > provided that: (i) you distribute the Redistributables complete and
> > unmodified, and only bundled as part of Programs, (ii) the Programs add
> > significant and primary functionality to the Redistributables, (iii) you
> > do not distribute additional software intended to supersede any
> > component(s) of the Redistributables (unless otherwise specified in the
> > applicable README file), (iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary
> > legends or notices contained in or on the Redistributables, (v) you only
> > distribute the Redistributables pursuant to a license agreement that
> > protects Sun's interests consistent with the terms contained in the
> > Agreement, (vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors
> > from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement amounts
> > and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred in connection with
> > any claim, lawsuit or action by any third party that arises or results
> > from the use or distribution of any and all Programs and/or Software."
> >
> >
> > B.i doesn't apply since we're not distributing a program, B.ii and C.iii
> > for the same reason, B.iii would probably have issues with GCJ and
> > Jikes. C.i prevents Java from being repackaged and C.v also prevents it
> > from being in ROCK.
>
> 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 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.
> Btw how do other distributions handle the Sun JDK?

Update: I just checked SuSE Linux, and they distribute a Sun JDK
source rpm package on their download mirrors (e.g. here:
ftp://ftp.tu-chemnitz.de/pub/linux/suse/ftp.suse.com/suse/i386/9.2/suse/src/
java-1_4_2-sun-1.4.2.06-1.1.src.rpm). It contains the .bin that can be
downloaded from java.sun.com.
It should be ok for Rock Linux to do the same.
Repackaging the Program (the JDK or JRE) in another file archive format may
or may not contradict B.i and C.i. In the license of another proprietary
software (Teamspeak or Skype, IIRC), which had similar clauses, the
exception was explicitly made that repackaging is allowed.
The main purpose of these clauses may be that users get the Java SDK/JRE
from a package with that name, and not some crippled/patched derivative.
Not quite sure about B.iii (and C.iii) considering GCJ, the Blackdown
JDK/JRE, and maybe other programs. Are they replacing parts of Sun's JDK/JRE
or do they coexist in parallel? I think the latter, and that B.iii prevents
distributors to distribute the unmodified JDK and patch/modify it right
before/after it is installed. B.ii alone does not do that.

So, mirroring the original package is ok; Distributing repackaged ("binary")
packages may be ok, but only if:
- the Software is completely included in the binary package; files from
the original archive marked as Redistributables may be left out, IIRC. To be
on the safe side, package splitting (:doc) should _not_ be done!
(Please note that extra edge between Software and file archive content. E.g.
if the original archive contained a small install script, this script may
not necessarily have to be included in a binary package as it would not be
part of the Software (the JDK/JRE).)
- the Software is unmodified: this means it should _never_ (_ever_) be
patched! A simple check in the package's .conf file can asure this.
(modifying the Software is never allowed; not even for internal use or
distribution.)

Stefan Fiedler