Craig Box wrote:
Yes, that was misread by myself and after reading debian-legal, jpackage, fedora-devel and the DLJ better understand the situation.
You can't ship both.
This is a work in progress:
http://download.java.net/dlj/DLJ-FAQ-v1.1.txt
} 8. Does this license prevent me shipping any alternative } technologies in my OS distribution? } } The DLJ does not restrict you from shipping any other technologies } you choose to include in your distribution. However, you can't use } pieces of the JDK configured in conjunction with any alternative } technologies to create hybrid implementations, or mingle the code } from the JDK with non-JDK components of any kind so that they run } together. It is of course perfectly OK to ship programs or libraries } that use the JDK. Because this question has caused confusion in the } past, we want to make this absolutely clear: except for these } limitations on combining technologies, there is nothing in the DLJ } intended to prevent you from shipping alternative technologies with } your OS distribution.
The outstanding problem, according to debian-legal, is amending the license such that the comments in the FAQ and README, that say "This is Sun's legal opinion but is not at this stage legally binding - you can only read the license for that", are clarified inside the license itself.
Ok, so even if they address the redistribution of it (so it can be installed with other java VM implementations), its still *not* OSS. What about the clause that requires you to indemnify Sun? Is debain/ubuntu addressing that? As stated before, this is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Sun is conning people/distributions into thinking its OK to ship a close source JVM, because the license allows it to be freely redistributed. Michael