You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to legal-discuss@apache.org by ac...@apache.org on 2005/05/07 22:11:29 UTC
Sun JRL
Hi,
http://java.net/jrl.html - Java Research License
Sun's new JRL license includes a "residual knowlege" clause. It appears
as if I could look at the code to JDK 6.0, learn and then use what I've
learned and go work on Mono if I wanted (provided there weren't patents
involved). Meaning there isnt' any real long term obligation involved
in this license. If this interpretation correct?
I've always wanted to get involved in fixing a few irks with Java but
this issue always held me up as I have higher Virtual Machine
aspirations in my future.
-Andy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Sun JRL
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net>.
My sense is that your analysis is correct; I seem to recall that being
promoted as one of the advantages to this new license over SCSL.
Brian
On Sat, 7 May 2005 acoliver@apache.org wrote:
> http://java.net/jrl.html - Java Research License
>
> Sun's new JRL license includes a "residual knowlege" clause. It appears as
> if I could look at the code to JDK 6.0, learn and then use what I've learned
> and go work on Mono if I wanted (provided there weren't patents involved).
> Meaning there isnt' any real long term obligation involved in this license.
> If this interpretation correct?
>
> I've always wanted to get involved in fixing a few irks with Java but this
> issue always held me up as I have higher Virtual Machine aspirations in my
> future.
>
> -Andy
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
> only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Sun JRL
Posted by ac...@apache.org.
Thanks for clearing it up. That is a bummer. I'm glad I'm paranoid. I
never looked because I assumed there
was some kind of catch.
-Andy
>Well, it depends on whether you would call this "a catch".
>
>The residual knowledge clause addresses any confidential information that
>the source code would contain. The exact words are "You may use any
>information in intangible form that you remember after accessing the
>Technology, except when such use violates Sun's copyrights or patent
>rights."
>
>Notice that the residuals clause does not extend to copyrights. You can
>study Sun's source code under the JRL and then turn around and write your
>own implementation relying solely on what you remember, and you're covered
>for any potential trade secrets that Sun might have had. However, if your
>code turns out to be "substantially similar" (an intentionally vague legal
>standard), then Sun might have a copyright claim that it can assert. You
>need to make sure that your code is not substantially similiar. How one
>does that without constantly referring to the code that you're trying not
>to copy without looking like you're trying to copy without getting caught
>is an interesting question.
>
>Sun probably didn't intend this result. What they probably meant was that
>as long as you aren't making literal copies of material portions of their
>source code, you're covered by the residuals clause. If that's the case,
>I think their desire for brevity got in the way of clarity. They would
>need to expand that section a bit to make it clear that the residuals
>license covered copyright issues as well as long as you didn't literally
>copy large amounts of code.
>
>Jeff
>
>Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
>(notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
>(web) http://www.beff.net/
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Sun JRL
Posted by Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>.
"Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org> wrote on 05/12/2005 02:58:54 PM:
> > Notice that the residuals clause does not extend to copyrights.
> > You can study Sun's source code under the JRL and then turn around
> > and write your own implementation relying solely on what you
> > remember, and you're covered for any potential trade secrets that
> > Sun might have had. However, if your code turns out to be
> > "substantially similar" (an intentionally vague legal standard),
> > then Sun might have a copyright claim that it can assert. You need
> > to make sure that your code is not substantially similiar. How one
> > does that without constantly referring to the code that you're
> > trying not to copy without looking like you're trying to copy
> > without getting caught is an interesting question.
>
> How is this any different than looking at any other copyrighted
> material for which you don't have a license to freely copy?
>
Not much different. If you were writing a novel about a young boy who was
going to a wizarding school you probably shouldn't be using Harry Potter
as your reference material.
>
> geir
>
>
Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/
Re: Sun JRL
Posted by "Geir Magnusson Jr." <ge...@apache.org>.
On May 9, 2005, at 10:39 AM, Jeffrey Thompson wrote:
>
>
> Well, it depends on whether you would call this "a catch".
>
> The residual knowledge clause addresses any confidential
> information that the source code would contain. The exact words
> are "You may use any information in intangible form that you
> remember after accessing the Technology, except when such use
> violates Sun's copyrights or patent rights."
Which is far more liberal than others addressing confidential
information that I've seen :)
>
> Notice that the residuals clause does not extend to copyrights.
> You can study Sun's source code under the JRL and then turn around
> and write your own implementation relying solely on what you
> remember, and you're covered for any potential trade secrets that
> Sun might have had. However, if your code turns out to be
> "substantially similar" (an intentionally vague legal standard),
> then Sun might have a copyright claim that it can assert. You need
> to make sure that your code is not substantially similiar. How one
> does that without constantly referring to the code that you're
> trying not to copy without looking like you're trying to copy
> without getting caught is an interesting question.
How is this any different than looking at any other copyrighted
material for which you don't have a license to freely copy?
>
> Sun probably didn't intend this result. What they probably meant
> was that as long as you aren't making literal copies of material
> portions of their source code, you're covered by the residuals
> clause. If that's the case, I think their desire for brevity got
> in the way of clarity. They would need to expand that section a
> bit to make it clear that the residuals license covered copyright
> issues as well as long as you didn't literally copy large amounts
> of code.
As part of the Harmony prep, issues around this have been identified,
and I am working to get the conversation going between Sun and the
larger community on this issue. I hope we all want the same thing here.
geir
>
> Jeff
>
> Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
> (notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
> (web) http://www.beff.net/
>
--
Geir Magnusson Jr +1-203-665-6437
geirm@apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Sun JRL
Posted by Jeffrey Thompson <jt...@us.ibm.com>.
acoliver@apache.org wrote on 05/09/2005 03:29:47 AM:
> Ben Laurie wrote:
>
> > acoliver@apache.org wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> http://java.net/jrl.html - Java Research License
> >>
> >> Sun's new JRL license includes a "residual knowlege" clause. It
> >> appears as if I could look at the code to JDK 6.0, learn and then use
> >> what I've learned and go work on Mono if I wanted (provided there
> >> weren't patents involved). Meaning there isnt' any real long term
> >> obligation involved in this license. If this interpretation correct?
> >>
> >> I've always wanted to get involved in fixing a few irks with Java but
> >> this issue always held me up as I have higher Virtual Machine
> >> aspirations in my future.
> >
> >
> > Surely only so long as you use it for "Research Use" only. Which
> > excludes distribution in any useful sense of the word.
> >
> Right but you mean that only excludes distribution of Sun's code. I
> could still look at Sun's code for "research" and then work on another
> effort right?
> (I've not looked at sun's code --- there must be a catch)
>
> -Andy
Well, it depends on whether you would call this "a catch".
The residual knowledge clause addresses any confidential information that
the source code would contain. The exact words are "You may use any
information in intangible form that you remember after accessing the
Technology, except when such use violates Sun's copyrights or patent
rights."
Notice that the residuals clause does not extend to copyrights. You can
study Sun's source code under the JRL and then turn around and write your
own implementation relying solely on what you remember, and you're covered
for any potential trade secrets that Sun might have had. However, if your
code turns out to be "substantially similar" (an intentionally vague legal
standard), then Sun might have a copyright claim that it can assert. You
need to make sure that your code is not substantially similiar. How one
does that without constantly referring to the code that you're trying not
to copy without looking like you're trying to copy without getting caught
is an interesting question.
Sun probably didn't intend this result. What they probably meant was that
as long as you aren't making literal copies of material portions of their
source code, you're covered by the residuals clause. If that's the case,
I think their desire for brevity got in the way of clarity. They would
need to expand that section a bit to make it clear that the residuals
license covered copyright issues as well as long as you didn't literally
copy large amounts of code.
Jeff
Staff Counsel, IBM Corporation (914)766-1757 (tie)8-826 (fax) -8160
(notes) jthom@ibmus (internet) jthom@us.ibm.com (home) jeff@beff.net
(web) http://www.beff.net/
Re: Sun JRL
Posted by ac...@apache.org.
Ben Laurie wrote:
> acoliver@apache.org wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> http://java.net/jrl.html - Java Research License
>>
>> Sun's new JRL license includes a "residual knowlege" clause. It
>> appears as if I could look at the code to JDK 6.0, learn and then use
>> what I've learned and go work on Mono if I wanted (provided there
>> weren't patents involved). Meaning there isnt' any real long term
>> obligation involved in this license. If this interpretation correct?
>>
>> I've always wanted to get involved in fixing a few irks with Java but
>> this issue always held me up as I have higher Virtual Machine
>> aspirations in my future.
>
>
> Surely only so long as you use it for "Research Use" only. Which
> excludes distribution in any useful sense of the word.
>
Right but you mean that only excludes distribution of Sun's code. I
could still look at Sun's code for "research" and then work on another
effort right?
(I've not looked at sun's code --- there must be a catch)
-Andy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org
Re: Sun JRL
Posted by Ben Laurie <be...@algroup.co.uk>.
acoliver@apache.org wrote:
> Hi,
>
> http://java.net/jrl.html - Java Research License
>
> Sun's new JRL license includes a "residual knowlege" clause. It appears
> as if I could look at the code to JDK 6.0, learn and then use what I've
> learned and go work on Mono if I wanted (provided there weren't patents
> involved). Meaning there isnt' any real long term obligation involved
> in this license. If this interpretation correct?
>
> I've always wanted to get involved in fixing a few irks with Java but
> this issue always held me up as I have higher Virtual Machine
> aspirations in my future.
Surely only so long as you use it for "Research Use" only. Which
excludes distribution in any useful sense of the word.
--
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/
"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff
---------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: Discussions on this list are informational and educational
only, are not privileged and do not constitute legal advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-help@apache.org