Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
Sun updates the DLJ FAQ
In response to questions which have come up, Sun has written a new version of the
FAQ for the Distributor's License for Java. "Of course, if Sun
clearly says in an FAQ that it's okay to do something (and we haven't made
a blatant typographical error), we're not going to sue you -- even if one
could make a clever legal argument that the license doesn't permit it. We
believe in simplicity and transparency, and pledge to work diligently with
the community to achieve those objectives." The language on
shipping alternative Java implementations has been clarified as well.
(Log in to post comments)
Sun updates the DLJ FAQ Posted Jun 6, 2006 15:56 UTC (Tue) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link] Of course, that's really: "we're not going to sue you (so long as ourcurrent management remain in place and don't change their minds, and aren't made to change their minds by external pressure)" There's no reason to separate the licence from the FAQ this way except to make the FAQ legally meaningless. It is perfectly possible to write an understandable licence that explains itself in plain language - the GPL is a good example. It's inconceivable that Sun couldn't do the same if they wanted to, so the only reasonable conclusion is that they don't want to.
Sun updates the DLJ FAQ Posted Jun 6, 2006 16:09 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] The new wording makes it more clearly an estoppel. At least anyone who gets sued can use it as a defense.This is not to say that I think Debian should have gotten involved in this. We're close enough to a real Free Java that their energies and implied endorsement should have gone there. Bruce
Sun updates the DLJ FAQ Posted Jun 6, 2006 18:55 UTC (Tue) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link] I'm sure that's true, but I imagine most Free software projects, Debianincluded, would be keen to avoid being sued in the first place by being very clearly not in violation of a licence. Besides which, even the FAQ states that "the license requires that you ship the JDK bundles with an OS", and Debian doesn't, since as we know non-Free is not part of the Debian OS at all.
Sun updates the DLJ FAQ Posted Jun 6, 2006 19:39 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] Of course clear license terms beat an estoppel. Debian's involvement so far does not meet the standard of their usual practice regarding licensing. And that's a disappointment. Perhaps this will lead to a disambiguation of the role of non-free. At the moment, I'd have to say that non-free is an official part of Debian. Or else, they would have no legal right to do what they are doing.Bruce
Sun updates the DLJ FAQ Posted Jun 7, 2006 17:39 UTC (Wed) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] But the Debian social contract still say1. Debian will remain 100% free
and
So it there is little doubt that SUN Java is not in Debian.
Sun updates the DLJ FAQ Posted Jun 8, 2006 14:39 UTC (Thu) by akumria (subscriber, #7773) [Link] "5. Works that do not meet our free software standards ...although non-free works are not a part of Debian..."Please. If isn't part of Debian, then why the big announcement and everything? Even though a change was done so that "non-free isn't officially part of Debian", clearly everyone perceives this to be a fallacy.
Sun updates the DLJ FAQ Posted Jun 6, 2006 23:53 UTC (Tue) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] > We're close enough to a real Free Java
Are we?
I have the same feeling about running existing applications under gcj as when I'm backed into the corner of running a random, real life Windows app under Wine: I know going in that it almost certainly won't work.
Close, but not there yet Posted Jun 7, 2006 0:23 UTC (Wed) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] I think there are three essential elements to Free Java:
Bruce
Close, but not there yet Posted Jun 7, 2006 2:53 UTC (Wed) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] Agreed on the reasonably well documented part, at least compared to Win32.
Though I just recently had to ship 2 Windows boxes down to a branch office down in Dallas to replace 2 Linux boxes because they had an app that required Java... specifically MS Virtual Machine.
But there is really only one essential element to Free Java:
You start your apps under it and it works. That's what counts.
Funny... Posted Jun 7, 2006 12:32 UTC (Wed) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link] My experience with wine is that a random, real-life app will run more than 90% of the time.
Funny... Posted Jun 7, 2006 20:45 UTC (Wed) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link] What color is the sky on your planet? Although support for InstallShield has improved greatly over the last few years, which helps, a majority of programs will still not install, let alone run.
Believe me. I install and support Linux desktops for a living.
And when I'm backed into a corner where my only option is to try to get a random Windows app running under Wine, it gives me that old "Oh Shit!" feeling.
Sticking one's head in the sand doesn't help.
Could you please list the 90% of random real life Windows apps that you have installed that have worked?
I have seen Wine do some pretty amazing things. Like run Unreal 1 perfectly, with OpenGL acceleration, with no crashes, and faster than Win98, though it took a whole weekend fully devoted to the task to get it going. (Sound was a real problem.)
But then you turn around and it has problems with apps you would have thought were one step up from "Hello, World."
I dearly, dearly wish that the Wine situation was different, but it's not.
-Steve
Funny... Posted Jun 8, 2006 3:45 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link] To me it seems that Wine is most usefull for small developers or people who have in-house wine32 apps that want to port them over to Linux with Winelib and such.
I expect that there are literally millions of these sort of apps and each one is a barrier to Linux adoption.
I don't know about how much work it would be to get winelib working well, but I bet it's much less work then it would be to rewrite a Win32 app for GNU/Linux/X environment from scratch.
You know that "real-life" means.... Posted Jun 8, 2006 13:56 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link] 1. the tax software my country's equiv to the IRS sends for you to fillyour tax forms; 2. lots (I counted in my house 10 boxes) of installShield-installed, DX8/DX9-using child "games" that my 6yo kid loves; 3. all (35+) of our developed-in-house Delphi-over-Oracle applications; 4. _all_ Delphi-over-DB application that I put my hands on installed and worked correctly in Wine; 5. actually, I am using Delphi7 under Wine in this very moment, to work on our in-house software. I know some people have different and more sophisticated software needs (video/audio/imaging stuff) but in my experience, much more people have software needs that are more mundane -- and for these real "real life" apps, Wine is more than adequate.
Sun updates the DLJ FAQ Posted Jun 7, 2006 8:48 UTC (Wed) by jmansion (guest, #36515) [Link] > the GPL is a good example
I'd say the GPL is a typically bad example. Its not very clear quite what it takes to be 'derivative' and there's the thorny issue of 'distribute'.
The GPL FAQ clears up some of the issues surrounding 'distribute' for use within a single organisation (or at least a single legal entity - which is a big mess for investment banks, for example, which tend to have a lot of legal entities reflecting credit entities, legal and regulatory environments, and the like). So if you're going to do away with Sun's FAQ, then you'd better do away with the GPL FAQ too.
Sun updates the DLJ FAQ Posted Jun 28, 2006 9:23 UTC (Wed) by nhippi (subscriber, #34640) [Link] > The GPL FAQ clears up some of the issues surrounding 'distribute' for use within a single organisation (or at least a single legal entity - which is a big mess for investment banks, for example, which tend to have a lot of legal entities reflecting credit entities, legal and regulatory environments, and the like). So if you're going to do away with Sun's FAQ, then you'd better do away with the GPL FAQ too.
That's only unclear if your intentions is to use, modify but not contribute back. If you consider yourself part of the Free Software Ecosystem, and are going to contribute back to the community anyway, It doesn't matter.
I think the point of gandparent is GPL and it's spirit is very simple, compared any of the Sun's licenses, or the other corporate lawyer derived opensource licences, not to mention real EULAs.
Sun updates the DLJ FAQ Posted Jun 6, 2006 16:44 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] We believe in simplicity and transparency, and pledge to work diligently with the community to achieve those objectives.If that's so, Sun, then the first thing to do is select simple and transparent license! There are a number of good ones to choose from. Until you do that, this is all just hot air.
position of the Debian project leader, Anthony Towns Posted Jun 6, 2006 18:09 UTC (Tue) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] Anthony Towns, Debian Project Leader, has posted a number of curt responses on debian-legal, but he posted a longer message today. Among other things, he wrote: Sun have made it very clear that they're trying to work with us on this for something that benefits our users, so that just leaves it to us to decide what's more important: taking a principled stand that we'll read every license literally and pedantically; or take advantage of other means by which we can be confident in distributing the software, and in so doing build a relationship with Sun that can be used later, and improve the experience of using Debian for people who need Sun Java? The new motto — Debian: convenience over principle. After all, who says you have to literally obey the license? If you read his message, he seems to be making the somewhat perverse argument that by using non-free Java we put more pressure on Sun to open-source Java.
position of the Debian project leader, Anthony Towns Posted Jun 6, 2006 18:56 UTC (Tue) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link] make that pragmatism and awareness of the needs of the users (that are principles, after all) over freedom of software... but not in main
position of the Debian project leader, Anthony Towns Posted Jun 6, 2006 19:55 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] The new motto Debian: convenience over principle.You seem to imply that the ultimate goal of Debian is delivering software under certain licenses. I don't think Debian developers would agree. My impression is that they care primarily about giving good software to the users without restricting their freedom. Methods to ensure freedom of software can be different. Likewise, the goal of Free Software is the freedom of the users, not the license. The GPL is just a tool that works in a certain legal context. If other tools can give the same or a better freedom protection, they should be just as acceptable. After all, who says you have to literally obey the license?I think you know the answer. It's really not hard to guess. It's the court. If Debian developers are confident that Sun cannot just discard its own interpretation of its license in front of a judge, this can be considered as a reasonable legal protection for Debian and Debian users.
principles Posted Jun 6, 2006 22:38 UTC (Tue) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link] Who said anything about only using "certain licenses?" Debian, in the past, has always held that maintaining the freedom of users requires ironclad legal guarantees in the form of a clear license from the copyright holder granting the permissions Debian and its users need.Debian has always accepted a wide variety of licenses, but it has always (until now) had a reputation for being sticklers about obeying licenses and therefore requiring unambiguous permissions. In my opinion, Debian's high standards have been good for the community. Obviously, the bar is lower for non-free, but including software based on a non-binding promise not to sue, rather than demanding a clear binding legal permission, seems a bit sad to me. (As was pointed out above, even if you consider their FAQ to be binding estoppel, Debian's distribution of Java in non-free is "not a part of Debian" and therefore seems to violate plain readings of both the license and its FAQ.)
Shipping with an OS Posted Jun 7, 2006 6:31 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] (As was pointed out above, even if you consider their FAQ to be binding estoppel, Debian's distribution of Java in non-free is "not a part of Debian" and therefore seems to violate plain readings of both the license and its FAQ.)I am surprised nobody has still spoken about this point. non-free may not be a part of Debian, but the license does not require that. It says: the Software is distributed with your Operating System, and such distribution is solely for the purposes of running Programs under the control of your Operating System and designing, developing and testing Programs to be run under the control of your Operating System;So you only have to distribute the JDK with your operating system, not as part of. Seems fair to me. Since non-free is there for distribution with Debian, and not as a separate download, it should be fine. You could argue that non-free is just an http directory on a web server and anyone can download the JDK given its direct URL. If that does not bother Sun, it should not bother us either.
Shipping with an OS Posted Jun 7, 2006 12:13 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] If that does not bother Sun, it should not bother us either.It may not bother Sun today. But what about tomorrow? Who's to say what happens the next time leadership changes and they're another step closer to bankruptcy? You may be happy to have a gentleman's agreement and a FAQ entry on your side but, personally, I'd prefer something a little more legally binding.
Shipping with an OS Posted Jun 7, 2006 17:56 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Exactly right. Everyone remembers that friendly Linux company Caldera, who are now named The SCO Group.
Shipping with an OS Posted Jun 7, 2006 18:42 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] But arguing that non-free is just like having a public web server is stupid. Sun themselves have the JDK available online, which you can download after clicking "I agree" below an obnoxious and useless message. What losses can they probably aduce in order to sue the Debian project? The ones derived from 100,000 users not clicking on the button.Maybe it is just the fear of being sued by a huge company, in which case no amount of license tweaking would be enough.
Shipping with an OS Posted Jun 14, 2006 20:04 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] US copyright law allows for statutory damages as well as actual damages. And they aren't small -- and typically apply per infringing act.
But yes, even if that weren't the case there's also the fact that getting sued by a big company is a pain no matter what the outcome.
position of the Debian project leader, Anthony Towns Posted Jun 6, 2006 22:49 UTC (Tue) by jstAusr (guest, #27224) [Link] There must be some reason why they need a FAQ to explain what the license doesn't say. I would like to see the Debian developers override Towns on this one. Or get Sun to change the license to conform to the FAQ. It just is something that others can point out that Debian is giving preferential treatment to Sun so why not let other things slide as well.
Lawyers just love this kind of confusion. If the FAQ says that the license is the defining document how can the FAQ have any legal standing.
position of the Debian project leader, Anthony Towns Posted Jun 8, 2006 15:41 UTC (Thu) by philips (guest, #937) [Link] > I would like to see the Debian developers override Towns on this one.
to get that you would need that:
> Or get Sun to change the license to conform to the FAQ.
Towns just tries to protect the project as a whole from possible legal disaster. It's his job. He was elected and he is *legaly* *responsible* for decisions made by Debian as a whole while he is in power.
Few commercial companies got the licensing appropriate for redistribution along with open source project in first try. Situation with Java is different in that users need Java more than Sun needs Debian distributing it. Normally company representatives come and ask "what we need to do so you would ship that product along with your OS?" Commercial companies have natural interest for any kind of cheap advertisement. No conflict arise in that situation - they are told conditions/etc. But Sun did it M$-way: they published draconian license along with nice clean FAQ. Normal people read (what they can read) FAQ without realization that FAQ isn't legally binding - but license is. They click "I AGREE" under license, not FAQ, after all.
If Sun would provide redistributable Java - that would be good news for everyone. If they would provide Java for not only Linux/x86 - that might change my overall opinion on Java. At moment I'm with sceptics, since I already experienced that "write once run everywhere" in reality is "write once, debug everywhere and run only where Sun allows you." I have much more positive experience with Perl and Python than with Java.
Sun updates the DLJ FAQ Posted Jun 6, 2006 18:56 UTC (Tue) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] The dance around the issue of what an "alternative technology" is is almost comic. They call out Perl and Python, but still leave the issue of free Java unmentioned. It's like by covering their ears and forbidding anyone else to talk about it they think it will go away.
|
|||||||||||||