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: Arne Vajhøj on 19 Sep 2009 20:03 Peter Duniho 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 think so. The exception text 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.?" Arne
From: Arne Vajhøj on 19 Sep 2009 20:05 Mike Schilling wrote: > Peter Duniho wrote: >> One might argue that it's silly for Sun to have applied the license >> to >> sample code. > > Or one (me) might argue that "silly" is a severe understatement. The problem is that no license specified means no license for anyone to use it. So if they do not any license in the examples then copy paste from it will be a copyright violation. The only way to avoid a license is to give up copyright and put it in th epublic domain. Why BTW would be a fine thing for examples if you ask me. Arne
From: Peter Duniho on 20 Sep 2009 02:38 On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:27:28 -0700, Mike Schilling <mscottschilling(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > The idiotic part of this is that it isn't really a library in the > usual sense. It's not code that has value because it provides some > functionality; it's code that gives an example of how to use an API, > and what it actually does in its unmodified state is (I presume) of no > value to anyone. [...] I think, rather, it is of value, but the value is actually at least as much for the author of the library as for any clients. Anyway, no disagreement from me on the "idiotic" point. I agree that for code that exists solely for the purpose of being sample code to demonstrate the use of a library to be covered under any license other than a straight public domain one is silly. Caveat: I have not bothered to verify the OP's claims. I'm taking for granted that there is in fact sample code that's being wrapped in the GPL/CDDL license. Pete
From: Peter Duniho on 20 Sep 2009 02:46 On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:03:02 -0700, Arne Vajhøj <arne(a)vajhoej.dk> wrote: > Peter Duniho 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 think so. > > The exception text 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.?" See my other post. Modification of the library excludes the exception from applying to the person modifying. That person may still extend the exception to _others_, but it no longer applies to him. Note that the text you're quoting isn't actually part of the exception per se. That is, it doesn't except the author of the modifications from obligations regarding redistribution. The fact that the text appears in the same place as the exception doesn't mean it's actually an exception; instead, it's more "meta-language" describing the construction of the license and how the license itself can be extended. Pete
From: Martin Gregorie on 20 Sep 2009 04:45
On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 20:05:29 -0400, Arne Vajhøj wrote: > The problem is that no license specified means no license for anyone to > use it. > > So if they do not any license in the examples then copy paste from it > will be a copyright violation. > > The only way to avoid a license is to give up copyright and put it in th > epublic domain. > If the examples are provided as downloadable source without any copyright tag or author attribution in a directory called, say 'examples', what copyright, if any, covers them? -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | |