License
in [Java Help]
|
Prev: how to enlarger Java heap size?
Next: JTable: how to change properties of a component located in a cell
From: markspace on 19 Sep 2009 15:18 John B. Matthews wrote: > In article <4ab51f99$0$280$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk>, > Arne Vajhøj <arne(a)vajhoej.dk> wrote: > >> If GPL is used, then any code "linked" to that code >> must be under GPL or it is violating the license. > > That is correct, but the example cited by the OP includes a specific > exception: > > 'Sun designates this particular file as subject to the "Classpath" > exception as provided by Sun in the License file that accompanied this > code.' That's a good catch, I missed that. As long as the file is kept separate and not mingled with other code, the Sun's copyright should be limited to that one file.
From: Lew on 19 Sep 2009 15:38 markspace wrote: >> It [the cited license] means you can't use this code. Not really. >> Sun owns the resulting code if you do that. Also, if you remove the >> copyright notice, you've violated the law. John Leonard wrote: > I am sure that the license does not transfer ownership to Sun. If code is distributed under the GPL, then modifications to that code by all future developers must also be released under the GPL. As others such as Peter Duniho explained, this does not actually transfer ownership of the copyright, it just limits the terms under which the new author can release their work. The license you cited gives you a choice of GPL or CDDL. The latter is less restrictive. -- Lew
From: markspace on 19 Sep 2009 15:41 Peter Duniho wrote: > The contradiction is counter-proof to your assertion. I see I'm being out voted here. I still would not "cut, paste and refactor the code for use in my program" as the OP suggests. That's just asking for trouble.
From: Martin Gregorie on 19 Sep 2009 16:16 On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:18:07 -0700, Mike Schilling wrote: > John Leonard wrote: > ? >> >> My background includes microcomputer app development going back to the >> 80's. I have become accustomed to having access to freely usable sample >> code from manufacturers and the like to get things going when >> developing for a given platform. Has that changed? > > > It has, and I can't tell you why. Sun is in the same position as those > manufacturers: they all want you to use their products, and giving you > some sample code as a starting point encourages that. Why they'd make > you jump through legal hoops to do so escapes me. That doesn't apply to all Sun example code. For example, the code samples in Appendix B of the JavaMail API Design Specification 1.4 have no licensing agreements that I can find and the overall document licensing doesn't appear to affect study, use or modification of this code. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |
From: John B. Matthews on 19 Sep 2009 16:20
In article <op.u0ip7d1g8jd0ej(a)macbook-pro.local>, "Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPeAdM(a)nnowslpianmk.com> wrote: > On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 11:58:53 -0700, John B. Matthews > <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > > [...] > > The exception is highlighted in yellow here: > > > > <https://glassfish.dev.java.net/public/CDDL+GPL.html> > > > > This would affect the OP's rights and obligations regarding > > redistribution. > > I don't think so. That exception provides only for the situation where > the original library is _linked_, without modification. > > Modifying the library code itself excludes that exception, leaving the > rest of the license to apply in whole. I'm uncertain. The exception says, "If you modify this library, you may extend this exception to your version of the library, but you are not obligated to do so." If I modify the library and extend the exception, I am obligated to disclose the modification, but I can still rely on the (extended) exception to link independent code that may remain proprietary. It's a good question for the lawyers, I suppose. This entails some risk, as either party may withdraw the exception from future releases, leaving the other party on their own for maintenance. Of course, the exception remains for existing versions. It's also a reason why I somewhat prefer the Library General Public License. As a practical matter, I routinely submit library bug fixes and enhancements back to the original project. Among other things, it greatly simplifies maintenance going forward. -- John B. Matthews trashgod at gmail dot com <http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews> |