OpenBSD Journal

Sun terminates FreeBSD java licence by mistake

Contributed by mk/reverse on from the lawyers-lawyers-lawyers dept.

JOS (openjos ! groomlake period org) wrote us about this recent licensing story:

According to stories on slashdot and other sources SUN unilaterally revoked the FreeBSD Java license. Later, after several unanswered E-mails from the FreeBSD team, it turned out to be a mistake in preparation to negotiate terms for new community license.

This serves as an example of what is possible and happens with revokable licenses. Sun can still revoke the license at any time. I leave it to the reader's imagination as for why and when.

To me this means that OpenBSD is on the right track with its licensing stance.

Although this allegedly happened by mistake it just goes to show that revokable licenses pose a serious threat to free software projects. We've seen before that you cannot always trust what seems to be given to you.

(Comments are closed)

Comments

  1. By Anonymous Coward (195.122.29.101) on

    lol.

  2. By j (131.130.1.143) on

    So are the terms by which the recently discussed WLAN firmware binaries are distributed non-revokeable?

    Comments

    1. By tedu (64.173.147.27) on

      when in doubt, there's always the option of just going ahead and actually reading the license.
      http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/src/sys/dev/microcode/symbol/symbol-license?rev=1.3&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup

    2. By SH (82.182.103.172) on

      Do you think it's reasonable to believe that OpenBSD will include something in the base system whose license permits arbitrary revokation? In particular since you refer to "recently discussed WLAN firmware binaries"?

      /SH

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (68.121.241.128) on

        No, it is not reasonable to think so.

  3. By Anonymous Coward (208.252.48.163) on

    So will OpenBSD be removing all non-Free software from the ports collection?

    Comments

    1. By tedu (64.173.147.27) on

      no, that's where the nonfree stuff belongs. in ports, not in base.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (24.34.57.27) on

        But Java was in the FreeBSD ports, not base system. Wouldn't that make this article FUD, then?

        Comments

        1. By SH (82.182.103.172) on

          As I understand/know it, the license was revoked for distribution of Java 1.3 _binaries_ from ports (i.e. packages), whilst Java 1.4 has to be built from sources like OpenBSD.

          The point is that, of course, one should be very careful of agreeing to licenses where one part may (more or less) arbitrarily revoke the license.

          Comments

          1. By Anonymous Coward (24.34.57.27) on

            That is a good point. However, it is not the point presented by the author of this article, who I believe to be incorrect. Thanks, though.

    2. By Ian McWilliam (220.240.54.229) on

      Yes, Problematicly licensed ports have been removed from the Ports tree in the past. Just think D J Bernstein.........

  4. By Anonymous Coward (64.119.174.202) on

    Please stop this baseless FUD. The java package was not part of the base system, it was included in the ports, the same place FreeBSD and _OpenBSD_ keep all their non-free software.

    Comments

    1. By Anonymous Coward (68.148.237.181) on

      How is this baseless FUD? Just because the package is in ports, it's baseless FUD and we can't talk about it? The revocation took place, albeit a mistake. Regardless of whether the package is in ports or in core, this mediocrity is a reminder about non Free licensing, and about OpenBSD's firmness towards Free licensing, which strives for prolonged value.

      Comments

      1. By Anonymous Coward (69.182.25.166) on

        I agree that the article is baseless... but the part that is baseless is that it was "a mistake." It seems to be completely purposeful to me. Where's the source indicating that Sun's move was a mistake?

        Comments

        1. By Anonymous Coward (68.148.237.181) on

          Well, with a little searching this turned out to be a mistake. However, mistake or not, it'd be wise to avoid non Free licensing just in case this stunt turns real one day.

          "Mr Gibbs [Secretary/Treasurer of the FBSD Foundation] had this to say, "The Foundation's Java licensing issue boils down to poor communication on all sides. Our newsletter caught the attention of the 'right person' at Sun to cut through the clutter and we now expect to quickly find a satisfactory resolution. The FreeBSD Foundation will follow up its newsletter with an update on Java licensing as soon as we can announce the good news, but our current belief is that this little hiccup will have no impact to the allowed uses for our binary distributions.""
          http://www.bsdfreak.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=57

          "The FreeBSD Foundation has negotiated a license with Sun Microsystems to distribute FreeBSD binaries for the Java Runtime Environment (JRE™) and Java Development Kit (JDK™)."
          http://www.freebsd.org/java/

    2. By Brad (216.138.200.42) brad at comstyle dot com on

      Ya, how is it FUD? They are not allowed to distribute the binaries. No FUD there.

    3. By Anonymous Coward (80.58.46.107) on

      Who is talking about base or ports? Only reviewers comments, not the article itself. And as far as for the article goes, talking about the OpenBSD licensing policies, it's completely right.

      Comments

      1. By Paladdin (80.58.46.107) on

        Ooops... Sorry; forgot the name. That as me :)

  5. By toxa (62.89.204.62) on

    any link to confirm this news?

Latest Articles

Credits

Copyright © - Daniel Hartmeier. All rights reserved. Articles and comments are copyright their respective authors, submission implies license to publish on this web site. Contents of the archive prior to as well as images and HTML templates were copied from the fabulous original deadly.org with Jose's and Jim's kind permission. This journal runs as CGI with httpd(8) on OpenBSD, the source code is BSD licensed. undeadly \Un*dead"ly\, a. Not subject to death; immortal. [Obs.]