Bug#276302: [Fwd: Re: Sun License for JavaCC]

Sat Dec 2 01:19:17 CET 2006

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

It looks as though upstream will be changing JavaCC to a pure BSD
license, or (if we can't wait) we have been granted permission to patch
the source ourselves.

- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Sun License for JavaCC
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 17:42:28 -0600
From: Tom Marble <Tom.Marble at Sun.COM>
To: Paul Cager <paul-debian at home.paulcager.org>
CC: Simon Phipps <Simon.Phipps at Sun.COM>, sreeni at dev.java.net,
Tom.Marble at Sun.COM
References: <456F63A1.2080103 at home.paulcager.org>
<9261B6D2-0840-4B6F-94B2-25C613084001 at Sun.COM>
<4570AB46.7080104 at home.paulcager.org>

Paul:

I'm fairly familiar with debian-legal and you are right --
they will not accept this kind of license.

I have inspected the code and found that the top level
LICENSE file has this (non standard language) from stock
BSD: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.html

And several of the source files have incorrect and/or
incomplete copyright blocks.

We have approval from Sun Legal to fix these problems.

Correct copyright & license block would be following the OSI
template (above URL) with the values:
<OWNER> = Sun Microsystems, Inc.
<ORGANIZATION> = Sun Microsystems, Inc.
<YEAR> = 2006

You may make these changes as a downstream delta patch.

Thank you for packaging JavaCC for Debian!!!

Sreeni:

Please fix the JavaCC code (upstream) with these copyright
and license fixes as well.

Warmest Regards,

- --Tom

Paul Cager wrote:
> Simon,
> 
> As you can see below, Michael Van De Vanter felt you might be able to
> help me with a problem Debian Linux has encountered with the licensing
> of the JavaCC product.
> 
> Would you mind having a look at my explanation of the problem, below,
> and let me know your views on the matter?
> 
> Many thanks,
> Paul Cager
> 
> Michael Van De Vanter wrote:
>> Paul,
>>
>> My understanding is that your concerns can be addressed by Sun.   Please
>> contact Simon Phipps of our Open Source office to get this resolved,
>> and  cc Tom Marble and Barton George.
>>
>> Feel free to drop me off the conversation.  There's probably little
>> further value I can add unless historical questions arise concerning the
>> technology or my original efforts to push it into Open Source. 
>> Fortunately, it is much easier now.
>>
>>     Michael V.
>>
>> Michael L. Van De Vanter, Ph.D.    Email: michael.vandevanter at sun.com
>> Sun Microsystems Inc.                  Tel: +1 650 786-8864
>> 16 Network Circle, UMPK16-304   IM:  mlvdv at mac.com
>> Menlo Park, CA 94025 USA           Skype:  michaelvandevanter
>> http://homepage.mac.com/mlvdv/home.html
>>
>> On Nov 30, 2006, at 3:05 PM, Paul Cager wrote:
>>
>>> Michael,
>>>
>>> I am writing to you as you were the author of the original announcement
>>> that JavaCC was to be made Open Source under a BSD license
>>> (http://www.experimentalstuff.com/Technologies/JavaCC/announce.html). A
>>> long time ago, I know, but as Sun still holds the copyright on JavaCC,
>>> Sreeni & co (at java.dev.net) would not be able to help. I apologise for
>>>  taking up your time.
>>>
>>> A question has been raised in the Debian Linux distribution about
>>> JavaCC's license (see
>>> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=276302 for the full
>>> story). As you might know, Debian has a very strict definition of "Free
>>> Software", and software which doesn't meet this definition cannot become
>>> part of the "main" distribution.
>>>
>>> Although JavaCC is released using the BSD license, there are a couple of
>>> "non-free" restrictions in the "LICENSE" file and copyright statements
>>> at the head of the source files. The license file ends with:
>>>
>>>    "You acknowledge that  this software is not designed, licensed or
>>> intended for use in the design, construction, operation or maintenance
>>> of any nuclear facility."
>>>
>>> This is probably incompatible with one of Debian's guidelines: "The
>>> license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program
>>> in a specific field of endeavor."
>>>
>>> So my questions:
>>>
>>>   1) Does Sun still require these non-standard clauses in the license
>>> (compared to the plain BSD license)?
>>>
>>>   2) If not, could Sun authorise the current maintainer of JavaCC
>>> (Sreeni) to remove them from the current source code?
>>>
>>> Once again, apologies for taking up your time.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Paul Cager.
> 

- --
_____________________________________________________________________________
Tom.Marble at sun.com                                             (952)
832-4123
Senior Java Performance Engineer                       Sun Microsystems,
Inc.
http://blogs.sun.com/tmarble                What do you want from Java
Libre?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFcMaFLSXFtdTZVSURAiYcAKCR1mW91pKZh/eEdxbF75OezafVBwCfVtGn
4EXuC//3OGTf2mvgFhW2RCA=
=Prkz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-java-maintainers/attachments/20061202/3f31c30e/signature.pgp