12
Short answer: No. The Java (JRE and JDK) binaries provided by Oracle come so many strings attached that they are practically unfit for any usage or redistribution with proprietary or open source-licensed software including GPL-licensed software.
The only sane alternative is to consider the OpenJDK which is using a combo of licenses and is primarily under ...
12
First Google never "forked Java" for Android. Google implemented its own Java for Android, but when doing so copied the API of Oracle JDK.
(and also copied a method named rangeCheck of 9 lines of utterly trivial code).
You must to be careful when you say "Java". Oracle has licensed OpenJDK under GPLv2 with the classpath extension. This is an open source ...
8
To the best of my knowledge Hotspot and most of the JVM code (mostly C/C++ native code) in the OpenJDK is released under the GPL 2.0 with Assembly Exception and not a "bare" GPL. This is in addition to the Classpath exception to the GPL that applies mostly to the runtime library code.
The links I provided here are for OpenJDK 7, but there has not been ...
7
Note: I am not a lawyer.
You are misinterpreting the "as-is" clause. "As is" does not mean you cannot modify the code (such a clause would, in fact, go against both the spirit and the letter of the Apache License). "As is" is a clause that states that the code you're using is what it is, and you need to execute your own due diligence when you use it. E.g., ...
6
Ah, but OpenJDK is not under the GPL. It is under the GPL with the Classpath Exception. You can read more about the class path exception here.
Here's the bulk of the exception:
As a special exception, the copyright holders of this library give you permission to link this library with independent modules to produce an executable, regardless of the license ...
5
All contributors to the OpenJDK project must agree to the Oracle Contributor Agreement (OCA). The OpenJDK contributor page summarizes:
The OCA gives Oracle and the Contributor joint copyright interests in the code. The Contributor retains copyrights while also granting those rights to Oracle as the Community's sponsor.
In other words, Oracle is the ...
5
To review, the issue here is that Google used the structure of the Java API when implementing their own software. The appeals court found that the structure of an API is eligible for copyright protection, so Google's implementation was considered a derivative work of that API structure.
The API structure is part of both Oracle's propietary JDK and Oracle's ...
4
The standard way is to use sonatypes procedure: http://central.sonatype.org/pages/ossrh-guide.html
It is basically 2 steps:
setup an account with them (free, but you need to tell them about a page you own or belong to)
setup some basic things in your pom or its parent.
For my projects I create a parent-pom in https://github.com/openCage/pfabulist-parent. ...
4
First there is no such thing as "infection". A bona-fide piece of FLOSS software is NOT a virus. There are only license obligations and requirements. Therefore a proper question should have been instead:
My question is, how far does the AGPL3 obligations extend into my web application?
The general theory is that when my program calls a function of a ...
4
When I run this web application on a private company network and its is only available internally to my company employees?
No, see below.
When I run this application as a public web site on the open internet?
No. Neither of these cases is an example of "conveying" (or "distribution" as it used to be called in GPLv2): https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....
4
Your software does not fall under the GPL because you benefit from the Classpath exception. But you want to distribute an unmodified OpenJDK alongside your software. What license does this bundle (your software + OpenJDK) fall under?
The GPL v2 states:
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work ...
3
When copying a file from another project, you must always keep the copyright and license statements intact. At the most, you could change a phrase like "this file is part of project X" into something like "this file was copied from project X and is now part of project Y" and if the copyright statement does not list the names of people, make it clear that the ...
answered Sep 11 '17 at 16:24
Bart van Ingen Schenau
11.2k1 gold badge21 silver badges36 bronze badges
3
As far as the copyright/license is concerned, there is no difference in what namespace you put things, so this is fine.
Whether it is a good idea for your re-users to do this is more of a question for Programmers.se, and mainly comes down to whether it is more simple for your users to understand what's going on or to write one import fewer.
3
See my answer to this closely related question. The gist is:
You cannot use the BCL-licensed JavaFX as provided by Oracle as pre-built for much anything beyond some evaluation and development
You can use the GPL+Classpath exception-licensed JavaFX runtime and open source libraries with an OpenJDK runtime for pretty much anything including commercial ...
3
The short answer is that eventually Oracle may consider any kind of Java usage as "function specific" be it server or desktop-based and therefore not licensed.
The only sane thing is to use the OpenJDK and never use any BCL-licensed JRE/JDK.
See also this closely related answers to Is it legal to bundle Oracles JRE with an open source program?
Short ...
3
The original OpenJDK (and NOT any pre-built Java download from java.net) is licensed primarily under the GPL 2.0 with Classpath exception. The OPENJDK ASSEMBLY EXCEPTION also applies to some parts of the code. The net effect of this licensing is that the GPL applies to the tools.jar but does not extend to code that would link and use tools.jar
Therefore if ...
3
If I switch to use OpenJDK, will I be faced with this same limitation? That is, would I be violating a license?
There is no such limitation in the OpenJDK licensing which is a combo of CDDL and GPL with classpath exception. Run with it without fear.
As a side note, there is no good reason to use the Oracle BCL-licensed JDK. In fact reading its ever ...
3
Yeah, many insist that this linking will form a derivative work. Even if this notion isn't shared by law courts (and this wasn't really tested in court as far as i know), many people might avoid your library because they claim the licensing isn't in order (if you use Apache and linking a AGPL3 library).
That usually means you should release your library ...
3
The FSF insists that linking against a GPL library makes the result a derivative, and thus must be under GPL. That is not what the relevant law says (it is silent on "linking"). On the other hand, to use the library you need the declarations of the stuff in it, which is in a header file included in the source. Thus it does depend on a piece of the library... ...
3
It is by default not possible to combine Apache-2 licensed code with GPLv2-licensed code. Those licenses are incompatible. The Classpath Exception (CE) does provide a path towards compatibility, as long as the GPLv2+CE code and any other code are independent modules. According to the CE:
An independent module is a module which is not derived from or based ...
3
You are correct that under a plain GPL license, a runtime like the JRE/JDK would only allow the use of open-source applications with a GPL-compatible license.
However, the classpath exception to the GPL, which is used by OpenJDK, is designed exactly to ensure that the GPL requirements of the OpenJDK do not influence the license choices of Java applications ...
answered Dec 6 '18 at 17:10
Bart van Ingen Schenau
11.2k1 gold badge21 silver badges36 bronze badges
3
Strictly speaking this is out of scope of the GPL: The GPL would apply to your software iff your software is a derived work of the GPL library in the sense of copyright law. It is not up to the GPL to decide whether that is the case.
This causes some to argue that linking with a GPL library never creates a derived work, whereas the FSF thinks that:
a ...
3
You may not be able to follow that requirement to the letter, but you can adhere to the intent of the requirement.
The intent is that recipients of your version of those libraries are informed that changes have been made compared to the version you received. To comply with the intent of the requirement, you should put a notice in a location where your users ...
answered Sep 22 '19 at 17:44
Bart van Ingen Schenau
11.2k1 gold badge21 silver badges36 bronze badges
2
The licence states that
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
provided [etc...]
It does not specify how you can and cannot use a specific class, function or library. All uses in "binary form" are the same to it. So yes, you could use a class from a BSD-licensed library like that, provided you comply with all of the license's ...
2
The way I read:
This version is distributed under the triple license of the MPL, the LGPL, and the Apache License.
... means that I can chose anyone of these three licenses (but not all of them).
Long question short: Do I have to redistribute further files (license text, ...) when using a Javassist .jar?
In all three cases, there is some least ...
2
As long as you preserve the NOTICE file(s) when distributing your binary, what you're doing is OK per the Apache License.
For instance, this is the NOTICE file for the current Commons Lang. You would need to ensure its contents are available to the consumer.
2
Am I allowed to do that? I'm concerned over the openjdk:8-jdk Docker container which includes a Debian GNU/Linux 9 image which uses a GPL license.
Yes you are allowed to do that alright. Assuming you are redistributing the Docker image(s) you are also responsible to comply with the licensing conditions of every FOSS package included in the images (including ...
2
By including the modified version of the OpenJDK Base64 implementation, your library has to be effectively distributed under the GPLv2 license, with or without the classpath exception.
If you keep the classpath exception, then it is possible to use your library in non-free projects.
If you drop the classpath exception, then any project using your library ...
answered Jul 25 '18 at 19:47
Bart van Ingen Schenau
11.2k1 gold badge21 silver badges36 bronze badges
2
Does renaming compiled Java packages violate the Apache license?
No, as long as you provide appropriate notice.
This is my problem, I only change the bytecode so there is no (sensible) way to put a notice in there, at least not in a readable form.
You do not need to put the notice in the bytecode. You simply need to inform your users that you have ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
