suns' java leagal issues

[مؤيد السعدي]

for those who suggested that it could be a bug in Sarf or openjdk
I don't care because I don't use any java stuff
but if I can type Arabic letters in GTK+ and QT but not Java then it's
openjdk bug
anyway it's not my choice nor yours
as free system is not a system which you can't run proprietary software on
it's a system that you have the choice

>>>
>> "almost" but not identical. A colleague of mine cannot use Yahoo Games
>> with openjdk-plugin from EPEL, while it works without problems with
>> Sun's (rebuilt by me using jpackage.org
>> java-1.6.0-sun-1.6.0.10-1jpp.nosrc.rpm)
>>
> 
> It does not matter:
> 1) We do not replace Fedora packages
> 2) We do not replace Fedora packages
> 3) Yes we could use alternatives, but that still feels wrong, as we would
> be
> promoting a closed solution where a very viable open solution exits
> 4) ok, 3 is debatable, but we do not have a license allowing us to ship
> sun's
> jdk, *end of discussion*
> 
that's a joke
because we don't replace fedora packages we can ship sun's java

> 1) We do not replace Fedora packages x 3
OK, with your logic nvidia drivers replaces nv driver
and fedora provide gcj and openjdk
so fedora replaces fedora's own package!

this is not true
if we ship java-1.6.0-openjdk then one would say "we don't replace fedora
packages"
but I'm asking about the legal issues in shipping java-1.6.0-sun

> 4) ok, 3 is debatable, but we do not have a license allowing us to ship
sun's
are you sure that we don't? because Sun say we can
http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jdk-6u10-license.txt
> B. License to Distribute Software. Subject to the terms and
> conditions of this Agreement and restrictions and
> C. License to Distribute Redistributables.

we don't have a license to modify sun's
but we have a license to distribute it
I only request packing it in a proper way that
1. yum enabled repo
2. sane "provides" to satisfy fedora's package requests (like netbeans)
3. does not break or replace any thing (instead it should use alternatives)