I wouldn't be adverse to dropping Oracle Java from Slackware if Oracle get any weirder. I might swap to OpenJDK to see how it works with Minecraft and a client I use for Freechess.org.

SlackBuild then please by all means.

I do however find this clause of the Oracle license interesting in this matter:

Read the entire license for usage several times. There is NOTHING in the license regarding redistribution that I could find regarding redistribution or repackaging that Slackware or any Linux, Windows, or MAC doesn't already abide by.

...which bring me back to the original post I made. As long as the complete package is provided with the licenses and documentation originally provided, it's legal, and Oracle seems to be wanting to play nice with it's licensing.

I understand the need to do a SlackBuild, but because the license is clear cut. As long as the original software is intact for it's purpose and includes all documentation articles, it doesn't make a difference if you use a .sh, .rpm, .deb, or .txz to apply it to your redistribution.

Honestly, no offense but I smell some serious bullsh*t in regards to wanting to abandon the Oracle implementation of JDK for the open source derivative, and a premature jumping of the gun by Debian and others wanting to entice Fear, Unrest, and Decent (FUD).

There could be an easier way to do this...

Contact Oracle and simply ask them.

1 members found this post helpful.

export STALLMAN_MODE=true

You should not trust proprietary software. You never know when are the vendors going to take weird decisions and change their licensing conditions without a warning. If you base your Java computing on Oracle's JRE, you might discover that Oracle decides to start charging a fee, changes distribution terms and makes your life impossible. Use free (as in speech) software and this will be less a problem for you!!

unset STALLMAN_MODE

Minecraft is said to work flawlessly, with just a 25% slowdown in load times and a slightly lower frame rate.

The only app I use Java for right now is a thermodynamic cycles calculation program that works fine on OpenJDK too, so if Oracle's implementation is dropped, I won't see any difference. Corporative users, however, will prefer to use Oracle's stuff as it is more reliable.

I am checking that right now.

1 members found this post helpful.

Source: http://www.java.com/en/download/faq/distribution.xml

Java binary code license can be found here: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/ja...nse/index.html

However, it seems to me that when they refer to "my software", they are refering to software produced by me and that needs Java to work.

In other words:
-- Slackware.inc cannot put the JRE package in the mirror.
-- Slackware.inc cannot distribute the package in the optic media.

Workaround: Make a dummy Java based application (i.e: an app that prints "Hello, Oracle sucks") and include it with the package. This way, your JRE distribution would be classified as "bundled with your Program".

Why this workaround does not work: because distribution terms allows you to distribute Java Runtime Environment to run YOUR programs, so you would only be allowed to run the dummy app and nothing else...

This is a damned headache. This is why I encourage everybody who does not care about running an implementation or another to use the free alternative.

I didn't know that there was drama with ION3, but the example that came to my mind was XFree86.

ION3's developer released his window manager under a non-free license that enforced distributors to always provide the latest version (or to pop-up warn the user if the version was not the latest) and banned any modification or patch that was not requested by each user. Of course, long term support distributions did not like the idea of upgrading the package every week or having to warn the user with pop-ups because their package was two weeks old, all because the developer had licensed the software under this funny terms.

Real programmers don't use Pascal!



gargamel

ION3's license was simply retarded. Basically a prime example of a license that just can not work under any regards.

I forgot exactly what all the drama between X.Org and Xfree86 was all about, but I think it was how the developers were given access to the CVS or something and too many patches required by vendors, and lack of progress as a whole from restrictive licensing (if anyone can validate this as what happened).

Ugh, how did Ion3 became relevant to java escapes me. In defense of the Ion3 developer, the way Debian treated his software was more retarted than the modified version of the LGPL he came up with, in order to protect himself and his sanity .

http://tuomov.bitcheese.net/b/archiv...3/03/T19_15_26

There are always two sides to a coin...
Can we stick to java please?

The ION3 and XFree86 incidents were only referenced as to why they happened and how the same is happening with Java. However the Java situation only has surfaced because OpenJDK has now been fronted by Oracle as it's open source derrivative of it main product and they are launching a new license with version 7 and everyone is in a panic because they think they can't use a system built package.

But if you read the new license especially the parts about redistribution and such, all they ask is the documentation and license files as well as the whole of the package remain intact for the redistribution. There is nothing specifically mentioned about the method or means of the redistribution, only things regarding package integrity.

That little section is for countries like Australia where we have reverse engineering laws covering software products that become non-supported by the vendor.

Essentially if you produce a software product that does XYZ and then you stop selling it and cease providing updates for it then once it becomes difficult or impossible to get the product to run then it becomes legal to reverse engineer the software in order to modify it so it runs as originally intended, despite any license restriction that may exist.

This wont apply to the java case as :-
1) The old java still works
2) They have directed users to a new product that does the same thing

Its not the same at all. The changed Ion3 license was still LGPL. Unlike Java Ion3 was still fully redistributable. Most distributions chose not to distribute it.
Thats not the case here.

BTW most distributions have been defaulting to OpenJDK as their Java implemention for a while now. But most/all have Oracle's one available as well.

It is really a shame that Oracle have gone down this route and hence forced distros to abandon them because the Sun/Oracle Java implementation is better performance wise and in terms of having less bugs. However it is not so much better that they will be able to force users to jump through hoops and download manually, whilst still retaining market share. Most users will simply stick with the implementation provided by their distro.

In all honesty, for my own part I'll probably stick with the Oracle implementation for a while because 1. Minecrack plays more smoothly and 2. It works much better in my browser (and I'm forced to use Java by one of my banks).

ROTFLMAO ... ;-)

I'm probably about the only person here that regularly references the (IBM) Principles of Ops. But Fortran ???. Erk - Assembler; nothing else.
O.K., nowadays also a bit of C for the zLinux kernel side of things.

The Oracle has told me (the original from Greece not Larry's fake), that Oracle (Larry's fake) will push everyone to OpenJDK while keeping JRockit for it's products. Sun's JRE/JDK will fade away.