🚀 go-pugleaf

Mark Watson <markw@markwatson.com> wrote:
> I have re-read Sun's new Community Source License Agreement, and
> it looks fine (to me, but I am not a lawyer!) for people who write
> only Open Source software.  I think that this applies even to
> people, like me, who may give away Open Source software, but still
> use it as a basis for their business (e.g., selling consulting time).
> 
> In some ways, this is similar to Troll's licensing of the Qt C++
> GUI toolkit for Unix and Windows.  You can use Qt for free for
> developing free Unix software, but you must pay a steep license
> fee for using it for commercial applications (or free applications
> for Windows).
> 
> Still, I would be very dissapointed if Sun's version of Java could
> not be used (forever!) as a free development platform for both free
> and commercial software.

Why would Sun's source copyright and license covers applications that
*you* develop?  I would imagine that Sun's Community Source license
covers the *Java source*, I think what you want to look at is the
binary/JDK license.

------
Now that I think of it, don't free software politicians say:

    Applications that use the Qt API and are linked against Qt, are Qt
    derivatives and, since Qt is not GPL-compatible, the GPL cannot
    cover this derivative work.

I strongly suspect that the Java libs are not GPL-compatible either.
Here's the binary license:  http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/1.2/LICENSE
So is it illegal to GPL Java applications?  I'd suspect not since I
don't believe compiled class files would contain Sun code.

------
From the binary license:

> 1. Limited License Grant. Sun grants to you a non-exclusive,
> non-transferable limited license to use the Software without fee for
> evaluation of the Software and for development of Java(TM)  applets and
> applications provided that you: 

So you can use the JDK to develop your apps.  Doesn't say anything
about the copyright and license on your applications, of course.

> (i) may not re-distribute the Software
> in whole or in part, either separately or included with a
> product. (ii) may not create, or authorize your licensees to create
> additional classes, interfaces, or subpackages that are contained in
> the "java" or "sun" packages or similar as specified by Sun in any
> class file naming convention; 

More or less irrelevant to your applications.

> and (iii) agree to the extent Programs
> are developed which utilize the Windows 95/98 style graphical user
> interface or components contained therein, such applets or
> applications may only be developed to run on a Windows 95/98 or
> Windows NT platform.  Refer to the Java Runtime Environment Version
> 1.2 binary code license

WTF is this about?!  I can't write applications that look like
Windbloze applications for Linux?

> (http://java.sun.com/products/JDK/1.2/index.html) for the availability
> of runtime code which may be distributed with Java applets and
> applications.  

> 2.  Java Platform Interface. In the event that Licensee
> creates an additional API(s) which: (i) extends the functionality of a
> Java Environment; and, (ii) is exposed to third party software
> developers for the purpose of developing additional software which
> invokes such additional API, Licensee must promptly publish broadly an
> accurate specification for such API for free use by all developers.

More or less irrelevant to your applications. 

My conclusion: You can write/distribute/sell proprietary Java
applications without Sun's permission.  Whether you can write and
distribute GPL software is a question I'll leave for the free software
politicians.

-N.
-- 
http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~navindra/editors/