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 20 Sep 2009 14:36 In article <h95osh$t3u$1(a)news.albasani.net>, Lew <noone(a)lewscanon.com> wrote: > (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 e[x]cellent 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. Not "prevent" but surely "reduce the risk" of losing a competitive advantage. Many technology companies, including Sun, are aggressively pursuing multi-license strategies to foster technology adoption while preserving what advantage they can. > 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. Precisely, and it may explain why so many companies are adding the boilerplate in reams. Examples from Apple, Oracle, Sun and lesser luminaries fill my system. > Neither the point nor the example are excellent. I will not dispute a matter of taste, but I value the discussion. -- John B. Matthews trashgod at gmail dot com <http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>
From: Lew on 20 Sep 2009 15:16 Lew wrote: >> Neither the point nor the example are excellent. John B. Matthews wrote: > I will not dispute a matter of taste, but I value the discussion. I value the discussion, too, but my judgment was not based on "taste" but on utility. The point was that Sun puts open-source licenses on examples in order to prevent harm from a competitor. The point is not excellent because there is no evidence provided that Sun had that intention, and it's evident that such licenses do nothing to prevent a competitor from abusing Sun's code to harm Sun, and I would guess that Sun's lawyers know that. Were it Sun's intention to prevent harm from competitors, they'd've close-sourced the license. Ergo, because the point is unfounded and illogical, it is not an excellent point. The example did not speak to that point. It showed that Microsoft did harm to Sun (or tried to) by comparing similar applications in C#/.Net and Java. It did not show that Microsoft used Sun's code to start with, that Sun's code was under an open-source license or not, how an open-source license would have prevented that harm, or that that incident was connected in Sun's mind to its purported practice of open-sourcing example code. Being almost completely irrelevant and completely non-evidentiary, it is not an excellent example. You may call that a matter of "taste". I call it a matter of any reasonable definition of excellence for explanatory points or examples in evidence thereof. -- Lew
From: Peter Duniho on 20 Sep 2009 19:54 On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:13:19 -0700, John B. Matthews <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > [...] >> >> 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. I don't know what you mean. What "last sentence" suggested "removing the entire highlighted section"? The word "exception" has a very specific and clear meaning. Just because someone has highlighted text beyond the actual exception granted doesn't make that text part of the exception. An "exception" grants a person the right to ignore some requirement; they are _excepted_ from the requirement. Any language that isn't granting a person the right to ignore some requirement is by definition not part of the exception, no matter how it's formatted. Beyond that, the exception (the right to ignore the requirement to make one's own code open) clearly applies only when the original code is itself unmodified, used only by linking. In this particular case, the OP has made clear that this is not applicable to his scenario, thus the exception is itself inapplicable and thus has no effect on the OP's rights and obligations regarding redistribution. If you want to insist that the part of the highlighted text that grants the right to extend the exception is in fact part of the exception, then it _still_ does not apply, because the exception itself doesn't apply. You can't have it both ways. Pete
From: Peter Duniho on 20 Sep 2009 19:55 On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 01:45:31 -0700, Martin Gregorie <martin(a)address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: > 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? The same copyright protection that would apply by default in any case. There is no requirement that a copyright notice, or even attribution, be provided in order for a work to be copyrighted.
From: Arne Vajhøj on 20 Sep 2009 20:27
Peter Duniho wrote: > On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:13:19 -0700, John B. Matthews > <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> [...] >>> >> 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. > > I don't know what you mean. > > What "last sentence" suggested "removing the entire highlighted section"? > > The word "exception" has a very specific and clear meaning. Just > because someone has highlighted text beyond the actual exception granted > doesn't make that text part of the exception. But it is the entire exception that is highlighted and the right to use the exception for modified work is part of the exception. > If you want to insist that the part of the highlighted text that grants > the right to extend the exception is in fact part of the exception, then > it _still_ does not apply, because the exception itself doesn't apply. The exception applies since it applies to using the code in the way we are discussing. Arne |