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: John B. Matthews on 19 Sep 2009 16:25 In article <h93aqo$laq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, markspace <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > 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. It's not carte blanche, but it's a common way to allow mixed licensing, while encouraging contributions to the library. -- John B. Matthews trashgod at gmail dot com <http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>
From: John Leonard on 19 Sep 2009 16:45 (replying to my own message - as a follow-up) If I use GPL'd code in a program, I must release the program under GPL license as well. Many (if not all) API samples provided by Sun carry some form of GPL license. If I use these API's, therefore, I must either: Release what I develop under the GPL or Devise my own means of accessing the API, which is probably hard to do. Sun provides these samples (I think) to make it easier to learn to program the API's. In order to promote Java development. Are they going to impose a condition that you can only use them if you publish under the GPL? I'm grateful to everyone who has responded to my question, even the preposterous responses. But, I believe that these notices are a mattress tag, i.e. a threatening legal notice seen by the public but, in fact, only intended for some. I don't know who the intended audience of these notices might be. Perhaps publishers who would include these files in a book or web site without proper attribution. But I don't believe that Sun is saying to the world, in effect, "If you want to program any of these technologies, and you use the sample code we provide in order to help you do it, then whatever you produce must be licensed under the GPL." John L
From: Peter Duniho on 19 Sep 2009 16:47 On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:41:41 -0700, markspace <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > 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. Agreed. They still need to comply with the terms of the license. I just don't believe that they relinquish their own copyright as a result.
From: Peter Duniho on 19 Sep 2009 16:50 On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:20:55 -0700, John B. Matthews <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > [...] >> 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." But that doesn't mean that the exception applies to modifications of the library. The exception exists to allow consumers of the library to use the library without falling under the other requirements of the license, if _all_ they are doing is linking to it. The above text simply means that if you do modify the library, while you yourself aren't subject to the terms of the exception, you are _permitted_ to provide the same exception to other consumers of your modified version. That is, if _those_ consumers don't modify the library itself, they may use the library via linking without complying with the other aspects of the license. Note that you're not even _required_ to extend the exception to consumers of your modified version. It's simply allowing you to do so. But in any case, the exception doesn't apply if you're modifying the code. It's applicable only in the scenario where all you do is link. > 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. All true. But the OP doesn't appear to be asking about code independent of the library covered under the license. It appears that he is specifically concerned with reuse via compilation of code in the library. I would say that constitutes a modification of the code, and thus the exception for linking doesn't apply. > It's a good question for the lawyers, I suppose. [...] Unfortunately, yes. Pete
From: Peter Duniho on 19 Sep 2009 16:59
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:45:36 -0700, John Leonard <john.leonard.2010(a)gmail.com> wrote: > (replying to my own message - as a follow-up) > > If I use GPL'd code in a program, I must release the program under GPL > license as well. > > Many (if not all) API samples provided by Sun carry some form of GPL > license. > > If I use these API's, therefore, I must either: > > Release what I develop under the GPL or > Devise my own means of accessing the API, which is probably hard to > do. Why would it be hard to do? The sample code exists at least in part for the specific purpose of illustrating how to use the API. You can take advantage of the sample code without copying it verbatim. > Sun provides these samples (I think) to make it easier to learn to > program the API's. In order to promote Java development. Are they > going to impose a condition that you can only use them if you publish > under the GPL? It seems to me that if you copy-and-paste code Sun's applied that license to, you're subject to the terms of the license. You don't have to copy-and-paste the code in order to use it, nor in order to make use of the API less hard (or even easy). One might argue that it's silly for Sun to have applied the license to sample code. But that's not really pertinent to the question; if they did, then the license applies, regardless of how silly it was to put the license on the sample code. > I'm grateful to everyone who has responded to my question, even the > preposterous responses. > > But, I believe that these notices are a mattress tag, i.e. a > threatening legal notice seen by the public but, in fact, only > intended for some. I don't understand the reference to "mattress tag". It's a common misconception that one would be violating some law by removing the tag; but the tags clearly state to whom the mattress tag does and does not apply. The consumer is permitted to remove it, and the language on the tag actually makes that clear. The only reason anyone thinks otherwise is that they don't bother to read the whole thing. This software license isn't "a threatening legal notice...only intended for some". It applies to anyone who is using the software in the way that the license describes is applicable. Other than both being legal notices, I fail to see the connection. > I don't know who the intended audience of these notices might be. > Perhaps publishers who would include these files in a book or web site > without proper attribution. I think the intended audience is clear: it's anyone who reuses the code. > But I don't believe that Sun is saying to the world, in effect, "If > you want to program any of these technologies, and you use the sample > code we provide in order to help you do it, then whatever you produce > must be licensed under the GPL." I don't know why they attached the license to the sample code, but given that they did, I believe that they are in fact saying exactly that. But no one is forcing you to copy and paste their code. You can just as easily write your own version of the algorithms contained in the sample yourself. Pete |