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 20 Sep 2009 10:28 Peter Duniho wrote: > 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. ???? The entire classpath discussion is only relevant for redistribution. Even with plain GPL without any exception you can do anything you want with the code as long as you keep it internally. And the classpath exception give yous the right to distribute both the original and the modified version utilizing the exception. No problems at all. > 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. Not true. It is from the license texts. And it very explicitly grants the modifier the right if he want to extend the exception to the modified work. Arne
From: John B. Matthews on 20 Sep 2009 11:47 In article <op.u0jl2vpi8jd0ej(a)macbook-pro.local>, "Peter Duniho" <NpOeStPeAdM(a)nnowslpianmk.com> wrote: > 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. I strongly suspect that such terms are intended to reduce the risk of competitors using Sun's own code against them, as has happened in the past. > 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. Indeed, all the examples I post are based on study of the API and Sun tutorials, but none could be called derived works. > 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. Good point. Sadly, I see a burgeoning growth of such defensive terms and conditions. -- John B. Matthews trashgod at gmail dot com <http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>
From: John B. Matthews on 20 Sep 2009 12:13 In article <4ab63c0a$0$291$14726298(a)news.sunsite.dk>, Arne Vajhøj <arne(a)vajhoej.dk> wrote: > Peter Duniho wrote: > > 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." [...] > > Note that the text you're quoting isn't actually part of the > > exception per se. I think the quote is the next to last sentence in the yellow highlighted section, entitled '"CLASSPATH" EXCEPTION TO THE GPL VERSION 2.' Removing the entire highlighted section, as suggested in the last sentence, would _not_ extend the exception and would preclude one from using the exception to link one's own independent work to the modified library. The plain GPL v2 would remain. > > 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. > > Not true. > > It is from the license texts. > > And it very explicitly grants the modifier the right if he want > to extend the exception to the modified work. I have to agree with Arne about the plain meaning of the text. Of course lawyers love to point out that "plain meaning" has a special meaning to lawyers. :-) -- John B. Matthews trashgod at gmail dot com <http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>
From: Mike Schilling on 20 Sep 2009 12:47 John B. Matthews wrote: >> 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. > > I strongly suspect that such terms are intended to reduce the risk > of > competitors using Sun's own code against them, as has happened in > the > past. > Like http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/11/16/sun_shuns_ms_gutter_benchmark/ .. That's an escellent point.
From: Lew on 20 Sep 2009 13:30
(Please attribute quotes.) Peter Duniho wrote: >>> 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. John B. Matthews wrote: >> I strongly suspect that such terms are intended to reduce the risk >> of >> competitors using Sun's own code against them, as has happened in >> the >> past. Mike Schilling wrote: > Like > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/11/16/sun_shuns_ms_gutter_benchmark/ > . That's an escellent point. Nor GPL nor CDDL would have prevented that. Laying an open-source license on code doesn't prevent competitors from using it against you, it only requires them to release their modifications under the open-source license terms. The example doesn't show anything about how open-source licenses would have benefited Sun in that case, nor even states whether Pet Store was under an open-source license back in 2001. It certainly was copyrighted by Sun in 2001 and that didn't stop Microsoft. Neither the point nor the example are excellent. -- Lew |