8:42 p.m.
there was a long heated thread on fedora ML titled "Proposal: Rolling
Release"
and some people mentioned something about sun's java and ubuntu was
mentioned
How many years has fedora policy forced a horribly fractured 3rd
party
repository situation - and not had a working java at all while Ubuntu's
approach was much more ensible?
All I can say is that with Ubuntu you can pick vendor drivers and Sun
Java 1.5 from the software management tool and you almost never have to
worry about conflicts among packages from the different repositories. I've
repeatedly requested these things in fedora and been repeatedly told it
wasn't going to happen.
the rpm provided by sun is broken, and I was advised by fedora solved not
to use the rpm
and to use the self installer
any of the two mean that I can't use package manager to get it
I can't install netbeans ..etc. from package manager
..etc. I think it's very easy to make a sun's tarball into a good rpm the
have the proper Provides: section and that uses fedora's alternatives
...etc.
but when I asked about this I was told they they can't be redistributed, if
this is the case how did ubuntu people did it ?
we have a non-free section in rpmfusion, in ubuntu world they call it
"multiverse"
http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/components
I noticed that they ship sun's java
http://javachannel.net/wiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JavaOnUbuntu
sun-java6-jdk sun-java6-jre
why we don't pack suns' java like them ? is there any legal issue ? and
what are the counter legal procedures done by ubuntu people in order to
provide that package and redistribute it
9:05 p.m.
مؤيد السعدي wrote:
but when I asked about this I was told they they can't be
redistributed, if
this is the case how did ubuntu people did it ?
You'd have to recheck Sun's licensing for their binaries. I seem to
recall them not being redistributable either (jpackage requested such
from Sun way back when).
Keep in mind that Ubuntu has the luxury of being based outside of any
(most) legal jurisdictions, so can potentially skirt issues like that.
Point is: fedora (and rpmfusion) still do care about legal
redistributability.
-- Rex
9:24 p.m.
مؤيد السعدي wrote:
any of the two mean that I can't use package manager to get it
I can't install netbeans ..etc. from package manager
What isn't working
with open jdk ?
Works for me: yum install java-1.6.0-openjdk
What isn't working for you ?
(Have you posted a bugzilla.redhat.com bugs ?)
...
why we don't pack suns' java like them ? is there any legal
issue ? and
We build from source. this includes the jdk.
what are the counter legal procedures done by ubuntu people in order
to
provide that package and redistribute it
Not care...
For a complete history, you could summarize the java discussions in
fedora-devel. Otherwise, are the following helpful ? :
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Java
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JavaFAQ
DaveT.
9:38 p.m.
On Monday 17 November 2008 01:24:13 pm David Timms wrote:
مؤيد السعدي wrote:
> any of the two mean that I can't use package manager to get it
> I can't install netbeans ..etc. from package manager
What isn't working with open jdk ?
Works for me: yum install java-1.6.0-openjdk
What isn't working for you ?
(Have you posted a bugzilla.redhat.com bugs ?)
...
> why we don't pack suns' java like them ? is there any legal issue ? and
We build from source. this includes the jdk.
Evidently doesn't include kmod-nvidia...
> what are the counter legal procedures done by ubuntu people in
order to
> provide that package and redistribute it
Not care...
For a complete history, you could summarize the java discussions in
fedora-devel. Otherwise, are the following helpful ? :
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Java
- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JavaFAQ
DaveT.
--
Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org>
10:56 p.m.
Conrad Meyer wrote:
On Monday 17 November 2008 01:24:13 pm David Timms wrote:
> مؤيد السعدي wrote:
>> any of the two mean that I can't use package manager to get it
>> I can't install netbeans ..etc. from package manager
> What isn't working with open jdk ?
> Works for me: yum install java-1.6.0-openjdk
> What isn't working for you ?
> (Have you posted a bugzilla.redhat.com bugs ?)
>
> ...
>
>> why we don't pack suns' java like them ? is there any legal issue ? and
> We build from source. this includes the jdk.
Evidently doesn't include kmod-nvidia...
agreed. though we do compile the
kernel module interface from source...
DaveT.
11:02 p.m.
On Monday 17 November 2008 02:56:11 pm David Timms wrote:
Conrad Meyer wrote:
> On Monday 17 November 2008 01:24:13 pm David Timms wrote:
>> مؤيد السعدي wrote:
>>> any of the two mean that I can't use package manager to get it
>>> I can't install netbeans ..etc. from package manager
>>
>> What isn't working with open jdk ?
>> Works for me: yum install java-1.6.0-openjdk
>> What isn't working for you ?
>> (Have you posted a bugzilla.redhat.com bugs ?)
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> why we don't pack suns' java like them ? is there any legal issue ?
and
>>
>> We build from source. this includes the jdk.
>
> Evidently doesn't include kmod-nvidia...
agreed. though we do compile the kernel module interface from source...
DaveT.
Maybe we could get Mark Shuttleworth to host a RPM repository for libdvdcss,
java-1.6.0-sun, and kmod-nvidia, since he doesn't seem to care about legal
issues plaguing much of the world :).
--
Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org>
12:12 a.m.
>>> why we don't pack suns' java like them ? is there
any legal issue ?
and
>> We build from source. this includes the jdk.
>
hello! I'm talking about nonfree branch of rpmfusion
that's why I'm not posting to fedora-devel
rpmfusion contains re-distributable binary only stuff like nvidia
and I hate java and I don't use it (unless when I'm forced to do that) so I
don't know what bugs does open java have and what it can't run
I have tried Sarf (http://sarf.sourceforge.net/) it's an opensource
morphology engine written on Java and it worked but I can't type Arabic in
text entry boxes and when I past them from other application it did not get
them
I'm not reporting this bug, my point is that some people needs java-sun not
java-openjdk
and we should give people the freedom to choose
can any one tell me why ? which term of the EULA ... ? that we can't
redistribute a well-packaged rpm for sun's java
12:40 a.m.
On Monday 17 November 2008 04:12:07 pm مؤيد السعدي wrote:
>>>> why we don't pack suns' java like them ? is
there any legal issue ?
>
> and
>
>>> We build from source. this includes the jdk.
hello! I'm talking about nonfree branch of rpmfusion
that's why I'm not posting to fedora-devel
rpmfusion contains re-distributable binary only stuff like nvidia
and I hate java and I don't use it (unless when I'm forced to do that) so I
don't know what bugs does open java have and what it can't run
I have tried Sarf (http://sarf.sourceforge.net/) it's an opensource
morphology engine written on Java and it worked but I can't type Arabic in
text entry boxes and when I past them from other application it did not get
them
I'm not reporting this bug, my point is that some people needs java-sun not
java-openjdk
and we should give people the freedom to choose
can any one tell me why ? which term of the EULA ... ? that we can't
redistribute a well-packaged rpm for sun's java
Just a guess -- I'd guess there's a either a "no redistribution"
or "non-commercial only" redistribution clause, either of which is a no go.
--
Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org>
1:24 a.m.
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Conrad Meyer wrote:
Just a guess -- I'd guess there's a either a
"no redistribution"
or "non-commercial only" redistribution clause,
either of which is a no go.
"non-commercial only" is a restriction on the "freedom" of the
software. I don't think this causes a problem with putting it into the
"non-free" repo. We already have "non-commercial only" software in the
"non-free" repo.
Well, we have to read Sun's user agreement to see if it is OK to redistribute it. If
it allows redistribution I vote for distributing the RPM in rpmfusion.
Btw, I recently checked adobe's flash agreement. That one definitely forbids
redistribution.
-oget
1:27 a.m.
On Monday 17 November 2008 05:24:26 pm Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> Just a guess -- I'd guess there's a either a
> "no redistribution"
> or "non-commercial only" redistribution clause,
> either of which is a no go.
"non-commercial only" is a restriction on the "freedom" of the
software. I
don't think this causes a problem with putting it into the "non-free"
repo.
We already have "non-commercial only" software in the "non-free"
repo.
Well, we have to read Sun's user agreement to see if it is OK to
redistribute it. If it allows redistribution I vote for distributing the
RPM in rpmfusion.
Btw, I recently checked adobe's flash agreement. That one definitely
forbids redistribution.
-oget
At least they provide a yum repo nowadays. And 64-bit support is on the way
too.
--
Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org>
1:32 a.m.
Here are the license texts:
JRE:
http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jre-6u10-license.txt
JDK:
http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jdk-6u10-license.txt
Part B's are about redistribution. They allow redistribution provided that there are
no modifications.
I also found no trace of "commercial use" in the license texts. But I'll
need to read them thoroughly to check for other possible issues.
-oget
1:37 a.m.
On Monday 17 November 2008 05:32:07 pm Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Here are the license texts:
JRE:
http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jre-6u10-license.txt
JDK:
http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jdk-6u10-license.txt
Part B's are about redistribution. They allow redistribution provided that
there are no modifications.
I also found no trace of "commercial use" in the license texts. But I'll
need to read them thoroughly to check for other possible issues.
-oget
I'd imagine putting it into an RPM counts as modification.
--
Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org>
1:53 a.m.
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Conrad Meyer wrote:
On Monday 17 November 2008 05:32:07 pm Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Here are the license texts:
> JRE:
> http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jre-6u10-license.txt
> JDK:
> http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jdk-6u10-license.txt
>
> Part B's are about redistribution. They allow
> redistribution provided that
> there are no modifications.
I'd imagine putting it into an RPM counts as
modification.
Let's go through the requirements one-by-one ("Software" refers to
Sun's Java):
--------------------------------------------------------------
(i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified and
only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running,
your Programs,
The Software won't be modified. We are just going to put a wrap around their tarball.
--------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) the Programs add significant and primary functionality to
the Software,
This is definitely satisfied. Out of question.
--------------------------------------------------------------
(iii)
you do not distribute additional software intended to
replace any component(s) of the Software,
We are not going to distribute additional software to replace
Sun's Java.
--------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or
notices contained in the Software,
Quite doable.
--------------------------------------------------------------
(v) you only distribute the Software
subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests
consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, and
Actually, we'll put the very same license text in the RPM
--------------------------------------------------------------
(vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors
from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement
amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred
in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third
party that arises or results from the use or distribution of
any and all Programs and/or Software.
We won't really "damage" anything that is in their tarball.
As I said, we'll just put a "gift wrap" around it :)
-oget
2:01 a.m.
On Monday 17 November 2008 05:53:21 pm Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> On Monday 17 November 2008 05:32:07 pm Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> > Here are the license texts:
> > JRE:
> > http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jre-6u10-license.txt
> > JDK:
> > http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jdk-6u10-license.txt
> >
> > Part B's are about redistribution. They allow
> > redistribution provided that
> > there are no modifications.
>
> I'd imagine putting it into an RPM counts as
> modification.
Let's go through the requirements one-by-one ("Software" refers to
Sun's
Java):
--------------------------------------------------------------
(i) you distribute the Software complete and unmodified and
only bundled as part of, and for the sole purpose of running,
your Programs,
The Software won't be modified. We are just going to put a wrap around
their tarball.
For the nosrc rpm, yes. The target rpms will be extracted and the files
shifted around.
--------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) the Programs add significant and primary functionality to
the Software,
This is definitely satisfied. Out of question.
--------------------------------------------------------------
(iii)
you do not distribute additional software intended to
replace any component(s) of the Software,
We are not going to distribute additional software to replace
Sun's Java.
We already ship java-1.6.0-openjdk and gcj.
--------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) you do not remove or alter any proprietary legends or
notices contained in the Software,
Quite doable.
--------------------------------------------------------------
(v) you only distribute the Software
subject to a license agreement that protects Sun's interests
consistent with the terms contained in this Agreement, and
Actually, we'll put the very same license text in the RPM
--------------------------------------------------------------
(vi) you agree to defend and indemnify Sun and its licensors
from and against any damages, costs, liabilities, settlement
amounts and/or expenses (including attorneys' fees) incurred
in connection with any claim, lawsuit or action by any third
party that arises or results from the use or distribution of
any and all Programs and/or Software.
We won't really "damage" anything that is in their tarball.
As I said, we'll just put a "gift wrap" around it :)
-oget
I'm not sure we can do this last thing. And IANAL (and I don't think you are
either) so our analysis of this is useless anyways.
Regards,
--
Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org>
2:08 a.m.
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Conrad Meyer wrote:
On Monday 17 November 2008 05:53:21 pm Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------
> (iii)
> you do not distribute additional software intended to
> replace any component(s) of the Software,
>
>
> We are not going to distribute additional software to
replace
> Sun's Java.
We already ship java-1.6.0-openjdk and gcj.
Attention. *We* do not ship those at *rpmfusion*. They are shipped by Fedora. We are a
different entity.
Let's hear what other folks will say...
-oget
2:15 a.m.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 06:08:13PM -0800, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> On Monday 17 November 2008 05:53:21 pm Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> > (iii)
> > you do not distribute additional software intended to
> > replace any component(s) of the Software,
> >
> >
> > We are not going to distribute additional software to
> replace
> > Sun's Java.
>
> We already ship java-1.6.0-openjdk and gcj.
>
Attention. *We* do not ship those at *rpmfusion*. They are shipped by
Fedora. We are a different entity.
Let's hear what other folks will say...
-oget
Any links to discussion on Ubuntu mailing lists? Obviously they felt
safe enough to go ahead with it... Has Sun sued them?
Currently I take the jpackage nosrc RPM's, build RPM's against those
and redistribute internally.
Ray
4:35 a.m.
Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
--- On Mon, 11/17/08, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> On Monday 17 November 2008 05:53:21 pm Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> > (iii)
> > you do not distribute additional software intended to
> > replace any component(s) of the Software,
> >
> >
> > We are not going to distribute additional software to
> replace
> > Sun's Java.
>
> We already ship java-1.6.0-openjdk and gcj.
>
Attention. *We* do not ship those at *rpmfusion*. They are shipped by
Fedora. We are a different entity.
But what about mirrors? There are several mirrors mirroring both Fedora and
RPM Fusion, they may get into legal trouble because of this clause.
Kevin Kofler
11:01 a.m.
New subject: Adobe Flash package (was Re: suns' java leagal issues)
On Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 18:24, مؤيد السعدي wrote:
>
> Btw, I recently checked adobe's flash agreement. That one definitely
> forbids redistribution.
>
> -oget
I don't have any problem with flash because adobe provide an official yum
repo for fedora
Yes, they do, but their RPM package is crap. It doesn't even have proper
Requires, because it's just an installer wrapped in RPM.
I gave a link to my specfile for flash-plugin on fedora-devel-list the other
day: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/scratch/flash-plugin.spec
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
5:35 p.m.
New subject: Adobe Flash package (was Re: suns' java leagal issues)
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 12:01:36 +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
<dominik(a)greysector.net> wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 18:24, مؤيد السعدي wrote:
> >
> > Btw, I recently checked adobe's flash agreement. That one definitely
> > forbids redistribution.
> >
> > -oget
> I don't have any problem with flash because adobe provide an official
yum
> repo for fedora
Yes, they do, but their RPM package is crap. It doesn't even have proper
Requires, because it's just an installer wrapped in RPM.
I gave a link to my specfile for flash-plugin on fedora-devel-list the
other
day: http://rathann.fedorapeople.org/scratch/flash-plugin.spec
Regards,
R.
according to this summary
http://www.adobe.com/products/players/fpsh_distribution1.html
flash is Royalty-free only for PC (desktop and laptops) but not embedded
devices
and
# Licensee must use the installers as-is without modification.
and here is the problem, "as-is" seems to refer to the installer
not the software
a escape from this is that the FAQ does not consider rpm to be an
installer!!
http://www.adobe.com/products/players/fpsh_faq.html#section-1-2
so that is not a modification to the installer! or at least I just want to
take it so (don't take my word I'm not a lawer)
and here is another YES
Can I change the Adobe Player installers or create my own?
The Agreement does not allow for modifying the installers that are
provided via the
Player Distribution Licensing Agreement in any way. For
example, you cannot use the contents to create a new installer or install
the Adobe Player to a location on disk other than that specified by the
provided installers. If you are using systems management software or
deployment tools, you may wrap the installers in the appropriate packaging
format for your system provided no other changes to the Adobe Player
installation are made.
notice "you **may wrap the installers** in the appropriate packaging format
for your system provided no other changes to the Adobe Player installation
are made.""
so this is a yes
the more serious thing about it is this term in the FAQ
Can I make the Adobe Players available directly from my website?
No. The Adobe free Player distribution agreement does not allow you to
distribute
the Players from your website.
I guess this mean that rpmfusion can't host such thing
the full text of the license
http://www.adobe.com/products/clients/all_dist_agreement.html
the funny thing that adobe don't want to answer us
Can I get clarification of the legal terms by someone at Adobe?
Adobe cannot offer legal guidance on the terms of the Player Distribution
Licensing
Agreement; rather this is a matter between you and your attorney.
Adobe offers the License Agreement as-is and enters into custom agreements
on an extremely limited basis.
7:57 p.m.
New subject: Adobe Flash package (was Re: suns' java leagal issues)
--- On Wed, 11/19/08, مؤيد السعدي wrote:
the more serious thing about it is this term in the FAQ
> Can I make the Adobe Players available directly from
my website?
> No. The Adobe free Player distribution agreement does
not allow you to
distribute the Players from your website.
I guess this mean that rpmfusion can't host such thing
the full text of the license
http://www.adobe.com/products/clients/all_dist_agreement.html
the funny thing that adobe don't want to answer us
> Can I get clarification of the legal terms by someone
at Adobe?
> Adobe cannot offer legal guidance on the terms of the
Player Distribution
Licensing Agreement; rather this is a matter between you
and your attorney.
Adobe offers the License Agreement as-is and enters into
custom agreements
on an extremely limited basis.
So shall we ask Adobe for a special permission? Note that, although our chances of an
approval are quite slim, asking won't hurt.
And is there anyone who wants to take the lead?
-oget
8 p.m.
New subject: Adobe Flash package (was Re: suns' java leagal issues)
So shall we ask Adobe for a special permission? Note that, although
our
chances of an approval are quite slim, asking won't hurt.
And is there anyone who wants to take the lead?
-oget
maybe it's much easier to ask them to fix their .spec file
(then we ask or allow us to fix it)
8:06 p.m.
New subject: Adobe Flash package (was Re: suns' java leagal issues)
--- On Wed, 11/19/08, مؤيد السعدي wrote:
> So shall we ask Adobe for a special permission? Note
that, although our
> chances of an approval are quite slim, asking
won't hurt.
>
> And is there anyone who wants to take the lead?
>
> -oget
>
maybe it's much easier to ask them to fix their .spec
file
(then we ask or allow us to fix it)
Are the dependencies named the same in all RPM-based linux distributions? I doubt that.
Maybe we can put this particular issue on the table when (and if) we are asking for
permission.
-oget
10:22 a.m.
New subject: Adobe Flash package (was Re: suns' java leagal issues)
On Wednesday, 19 November 2008 at 20:57, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
--- On Wed, 11/19/08, مؤيد السعدي wrote:
>
> the more serious thing about it is this term in the FAQ
>
> > Can I make the Adobe Players available directly from
> my website?
> > No. The Adobe free Player distribution agreement does
> not allow you to
> distribute the Players from your website.
>
> I guess this mean that rpmfusion can't host such thing
>
> the full text of the license
> http://www.adobe.com/products/clients/all_dist_agreement.html
>
> the funny thing that adobe don't want to answer us
>
> > Can I get clarification of the legal terms by someone
> at Adobe?
> > Adobe cannot offer legal guidance on the terms of the
> Player Distribution
> Licensing Agreement; rather this is a matter between you
> and your attorney.
> Adobe offers the License Agreement as-is and enters into
> custom agreements
> on an extremely limited basis.
So shall we ask Adobe for a special permission? Note that,
although our chances of an approval are quite slim, asking won't hurt.
And is there anyone who wants to take the lead?
I can ask them and I'm willing to maintain the package.
Assuming I can be considered an RPMFusion representative
in this matter, I will ask them.
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
10:06 a.m.
On Tuesday, 18 November 2008 at 01:12, مؤيد السعدي wrote:
>>>> why we don't pack suns' java like them ? is
there any legal issue ?
>>> We build from source. this includes the jdk.
>>
hello! I'm talking about nonfree branch of rpmfusion
that's why I'm not posting to fedora-devel
rpmfusion contains re-distributable binary only stuff like nvidia
and I hate java and I don't use it (unless when I'm forced to do that) so I
don't know what bugs does open java have and what it can't run
I have tried Sarf (http://sarf.sourceforge.net/) it's an opensource
morphology engine written on Java and it worked but I can't type Arabic in
text entry boxes and when I past them from other application it did not get
them
It may be a bug in the application or in the OpenJDK. Why don't you try
filing a bug report?
I'm not reporting this bug, my point is that some people needs
java-sun not
java-openjdk
AFAIK Sun's JDK is (almost) the same as OpenJDK.
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
12:03 p.m.
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
AFAIK Sun's JDK is (almost) the same as OpenJDK.
"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)
12:15 p.m.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 1:03 PM, manuel wolfshant
<wolfy(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>
>
> AFAIK Sun's JDK is (almost) the same as OpenJDK.
>
"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)
What about the one in F10, assuming the "LiveConnect" feature was the
deal breaker here?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/LiveConnect
--
Gianluca Sforna
http://morefedora.blogspot.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/gianlucasforna
12:38 p.m.
manuel wolfshant wrote:
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
>
>
> AFAIK Sun's JDK is (almost) the same as OpenJDK.
>
"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*
Regards,
Hans
5:52 p.m.
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)
6:05 p.m.
مؤيد السعدي wrote:
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
+1
2. sane "provides" to satisfy fedora's package requests
(like netbeans)
3. does not break or replace any thing (instead it should use alternatives)
Satisfying 2,3 may be quite a task. Given that (and a package review),
it is worthy for nonfree.
That said, openjdk really is very close to being usable for all/most
java usecases... the effort may well be better spent fixing the
remaining issues there instead. But, you're free to spend your
time/efforts as you wish.
-- Rex
5828
days inactive
5849
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
30 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Agnes Jones -
Conrad Meyer -
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Gianluca Sforna -
Hans de Goede -
Kevin Kofler -
manuel "lonely wolf" wolfshant -
Orcan Ogetbil -
Ray Van Dolson -
Rex Dieter -
مؤيد السعدي