Java license explanation

java-programmer, Java license explanation Can someone explain to me if Java can be used freely like other
softwares like C++.Perl, PHP or I have to pay for its license once I
used it in programming in a company or in a website or e-commerce.

Is Java really opensource or not?
And so when will be the time you have to pay for its license?

Thanks!!!

java-programmer >> Java license explanation Chris <email***@***.com> wrote:
> Can someone explain to me if Java can be used freely like other
> softwares like C++.Perl, PHP or I have to pay for its license once I
> used it in programming in a company or in a website or e-commerce.

Yes, you can use it freely.

> Is Java really opensource or not?

There are open source implementations of the Java platform. Sun has
said repeatedly that it would *like* to make its JRE open source, but
hasn't yet.

> And so when will be the time you have to pay for its license?

It's unlikely you'll ever have to - particularly with .NET available
now. Bear in mind that there are multiple JRE vendors - the chances of
*all* the major ones deciding to charge are slim, IMO.

--
Jon Skeet - <email***@***.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

java-programmer >> Java license explanation Jon Skeet wrote:
>>Is Java really opensource or not?
>
>
> There are open source implementations of the Java platform. Sun has
> said repeatedly that it would *like* to make its JRE open source, but
> hasn't yet.

It is "open source" in the sense that the source is publically available,
but not in the sense that people are allowed to modify it and distribute
such modified versions (Sun very explicitly forbids this in their license
terms). So it depends on what you mean with "open source".

java-programmer >> Java license explanation Michael Borgwardt <email***@***.com> wrote:
> > There are open source implementations of the Java platform. Sun has
> > said repeatedly that it would *like* to make its JRE open source, but
> > hasn't yet.
>
> It is "open source" in the sense that the source is publically available,
> but not in the sense that people are allowed to modify it and distribute
> such modified versions (Sun very explicitly forbids this in their license
> terms). So it depends on what you mean with "open source".

Well, I don't think you'd find many people who are *at all* interested
in open source or free (as in speech) software who would consider that
(or Microsoft's Shared Source licence) to be "open source".

--
Jon Skeet - <email***@***.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

java-programmer >> Java license explanation Jon Skeet wrote:
>>It is "open source" in the sense that the source is publically available,
>>but not in the sense that people are allowed to modify it and distribute
>>such modified versions (Sun very explicitly forbids this in their license
>>terms). So it depends on what you mean with "open source".
>
>
> Well, I don't think you'd find many people who are *at all* interested
> in open source or free (as in speech) software who would consider that
> (or Microsoft's Shared Source licence) to be "open source".

The original poster didn't sound like he was aware of the full meaning
of the expression.

java-programmer >> Java license explanation Jon Skeet <email***@***.com> scribbled the following:
> Michael Borgwardt <email***@***.com> wrote:
>> > There are open source implementations of the Java platform. Sun has
>> > said repeatedly that it would *like* to make its JRE open source, but
>> > hasn't yet.
>>
>> It is "open source" in the sense that the source is publically available,
>> but not in the sense that people are allowed to modify it and distribute
>> such modified versions (Sun very explicitly forbids this in their license
>> terms). So it depends on what you mean with "open source".

> Well, I don't think you'd find many people who are *at all* interested
> in open source or free (as in speech) software who would consider that
> (or Microsoft's Shared Source licence) to be "open source".

Don't you have to *both* be on a special "invite list" *and* pay a huge
sum of money to qualify for Microsoft's "Shared Source"? If that is
true, then it's less open than what Sun is doing.

--
/-- Joona Palaste (email***@***.com) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"No, Maggie, not Aztec, Olmec! Ol-mec!"
- Lisa Simpson

java-programmer >> Java license explanation Joona I Palaste <email***@***.com> wrote in message news:<bu4emk$gld$email***@***.com>...
> Jon Skeet <email***@***.com> scribbled the following:
> > Michael Borgwardt <email***@***.com> wrote:
> >> > There are open source implementations of the Java platform. Sun has
> >> > said repeatedly that it would *like* to make its JRE open source, but
> >> > hasn't yet.
> >>
> >> It is "open source" in the sense that the source is publically available,
> >> but not in the sense that people are allowed to modify it and distribute
> >> such modified versions (Sun very explicitly forbids this in their license
> >> terms). So it depends on what you mean with "open source".

If I made an online website with e-commerce attached with it using
java,jsp,j2EE etc, would i then have to pay a java license for use of
it?

java-programmer >> Java license explanation Chris wrote:

> If I made an online website with e-commerce attached with it using
> java,jsp,j2EE etc, would i then have to pay a java license for use of
> it?

No.

java-programmer >> Java license explanation Joona I Palaste <email***@***.com> wrote:
> > Well, I don't think you'd find many people who are *at all* interested
> > in open source or free (as in speech) software who would consider that
> > (or Microsoft's Shared Source licence) to be "open source".
>
> Don't you have to *both* be on a special "invite list" *and* pay a huge
> sum of money to qualify for Microsoft's "Shared Source"? If that is
> true, then it's less open than what Sun is doing.

No, definitely not.

For instance, anyone can download ROTOR (Microsoft's FreeBSD/XP/MacOSX
CLR implementation) - see http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/sscli/

You need to agree to a licence, but that's fair enough.

There are other parts which *are* more heavily restricted, although
again those don't always require money. For instance, as an MVP I
believe I actually have access to the Windows source code free of
charge, if I want it - under strict terms and conditions of use, of
course.

--
Jon Skeet - <email***@***.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

java-programmer >> Java license explanation Chris <email***@***.com> wrote:
> If I made an online website with e-commerce attached with it using
> java,jsp,j2EE etc, would i then have to pay a java license for use of
> it?

No - although depending on which J2EE server you picked, you may well
have to pay for that.

--
Jon Skeet - <email***@***.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

java-programmer >> Java license explanation Jon Skeet <email***@***.com> scribbled the following:
> Joona I Palaste <email***@***.com> wrote:
>> > Well, I don't think you'd find many people who are *at all* interested
>> > in open source or free (as in speech) software who would consider that
>> > (or Microsoft's Shared Source licence) to be "open source".
>>
>> Don't you have to *both* be on a special "invite list" *and* pay a huge
>> sum of money to qualify for Microsoft's "Shared Source"? If that is
>> true, then it's less open than what Sun is doing.

> No, definitely not.

> For instance, anyone can download ROTOR (Microsoft's FreeBSD/XP/MacOSX
> CLR implementation) - see http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/sscli/

> You need to agree to a licence, but that's fair enough.

> There are other parts which *are* more heavily restricted, although
> again those don't always require money. For instance, as an MVP I
> believe I actually have access to the Windows source code free of
> charge, if I want it - under strict terms and conditions of use, of
> course.

How does one get to be an MVP then?

--
/-- Joona Palaste (email***@***.com) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"To doo bee doo bee doo."
- Frank Sinatra

java-programmer >> Java license explanation Joona I Palaste wrote:
> How does one get to be an MVP then?
>

Answer questions on newsgroups. The catch is that you have to do it in
the microsoft.* hierarchy. Eventually, someone will notice you and make
you an MVP.

--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way to Train Anyone... Anywhere.

Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation

java-programmer >> Java license explanation Joona I Palaste <email***@***.com> wrote:
> > There are other parts which *are* more heavily restricted, although
> > again those don't always require money. For instance, as an MVP I
> > believe I actually have access to the Windows source code free of
> > charge, if I want it - under strict terms and conditions of use, of
> > course.
>
> How does one get to be an MVP then?

Well, in my case I answer a lot of posts on the C# and .NET
newsgroups...

--
Jon Skeet - <email***@***.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

java-programmer >> Java license explanation email***@***.com (Chris) said:
>Can someone explain to me if Java can be used freely like other
>softwares like C++.Perl, PHP or I have to pay for its license once I
>used it in programming in a company or in a website or e-commerce.
>
>Is Java really opensource or not?
>And so when will be the time you have to pay for its license?

Actually the license is not as clear as I was thinking. While re-reading
it (LICENSE file included in J2SDK 1.4.1 distribution), I noticed the
following:

In the very beginning:
: 1. LICENSE TO USE. Sun grants you a non-exclusive and
: non-transferable license for the internal use only of the
: accompanying software and documentation and any error
: corrections provided by Sun (collectively "Software"), by
: the number of users and the class of computer hardware for
: which the corresponding fee has been paid.

... ok, currently the fee apparently is zero, but a provision seems to
exist to set a non-zero fee (of course this would be applicable only for
licenses granted after setting the fee). But what was the odd clause in
the above was the statement "for internal use only". So, would this mean
that if I set up a WWW site where users could upload Java source files
for compilation, and download the resulting class files, I would be
infringing this license?

Later (at around 3/4 of the file):

: 5. Notice of Automatic Software Updates from Sun. You
: acknowledge that the Software may automatically download,
: install, and execute applets, applications, software
: extensions, and updated versions of the Software from Sun
: ("Software Updates"), which may require you to accept
: updated terms and conditions for installation. If
: additional terms and conditions are not presented on
: installation, the Software Updates will be considered part
: of the Software and subject to the terms and conditions of
: the Agreement.
:
: 6. Notice of Automatic Downloads. You acknowledge that, by
: your use of the Software and/or by requesting services that
: require use of the Software, the Software may automatically
: download, install, and execute software applications from
: sources other than Sun ("Other Software"). Sun makes no
: representations of a relationship of any kind to licensors
: of Other Software. TO THE EXTENT NOT PROHIBITED BY LAW, IN
: NO EVENT WILL SUN OR ITS LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOST
: REVENUE, PROFIT OR DATA, OR FOR SPECIAL, INDIRECT,
: CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, HOWEVER
: CAUSED REGARDLESS OF THE THEORY OF LIABILITY, ARISING OUT
: OF OR RELATED TO THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE OTHER
: SOFTWARE, EVEN IF SUN HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
: OF SUCH DAMAGES.

Here I'm uncertain as to how I should intepret the word "may"
in phrase "may automatially download". Is it "may" as in "is
allowed to", or "may" as in "this could happen"? So, is Sun
stating that I must allow the program to perform its automated
downloads, or is Sun just warning me that the software could
attempt to "phone home"?
--
Wolf a.k.a. Juha Laiho Espoo, Finland
(GC 3.0) GIT d- s+: a C++ ULSH++++$ P++@ L+++ E- W+$@ N++ !K w !O !M V
PS(+) PE Y+ PGP(+) t- 5 !X R !tv b+ !DI D G e+ h---- r+++ y++++
"...cancel my subscription to the resurrection!" (Jim Morrison)

java-programmer >> Java license explanation Juha Laiho <email***@***.com> wrote:
> Here I'm uncertain as to how I should intepret the word "may"
> in phrase "may automatially download". Is it "may" as in "is
> allowed to", or "may" as in "this could happen"? So, is Sun
> stating that I must allow the program to perform its automated
> downloads, or is Sun just warning me that the software could
> attempt to "phone home"?

It's basically saying that J2SE contains webstart, which might download
an updated version of Java.

--
Jon Skeet - <email***@***.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

java-programmer >> Java license explanation In article <bu72s0$uj8$email***@***.com>,
Juha Laiho <email***@***.com> wrote:
>
>In the very beginning:
>: 1. LICENSE TO USE. Sun grants you a non-exclusive and
>: non-transferable license for the internal use only of the
>: accompanying software and documentation and any error
>: corrections provided by Sun (collectively "Software"), by
>: the number of users and the class of computer hardware for
>: which the corresponding fee has been paid.
>
>... ok, currently the fee apparently is zero, but a provision seems to
>exist to set a non-zero fee (of course this would be applicable only for
>licenses granted after setting the fee). But what was the odd clause in
>the above was the statement "for internal use only". So, would this mean
>that if I set up a WWW site where users could upload Java source files
>for compilation, and download the resulting class files, I would be
>infringing this license?

I believe it's a "assemble a license from pre-built parts" sort of
situation. The first part of the license is a standard Sun license
that basically doesn't let you do anything interesting with the
software and then they tag on the "supplemental license terms" to the
end that reverse a number of the limitations of the preceding section.

They probably find it's a convenient way of building licenses.

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - email***@***.com - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

java-programmer >> Java license explanation "Chris Smith" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
| Joona I Palaste wrote:
| > How does one get to be an MVP then?
....
| Answer questions on newsgroups. The catch is that you have to
do it in
| the microsoft.* hierarchy. Eventually, someone will notice you
and make
| you an MVP.

VBG.. given Jon's prolific posting rate,
that sounds like hard work!

java-programmer >> Java license explanation Joona I Palaste <email***@***.com> wrote in
news:bu6p3c$19$email***@***.com:

>> There are other parts which *are* more heavily restricted, although
>> again those don't always require money. For instance, as an MVP I
>> believe I actually have access to the Windows source code free of
>> charge, if I want it - under strict terms and conditions of use, of
>> course.
>
> How does one get to be an MVP then?

Tell Bill he has the largest one you've ever seen.

--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d++ s+:- a+ C+ UL++++ P+ L+ E- W+ N++ o- K++ w+ O+ M !V PS+ PE Y+ PGP
t+ !5 X- R- tv--- b++ DI++ D+ G++ e++ h---- r+++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

java-programmer >> Java license explanation java itself is basically free to use to your hearts content and if you
were smart and/or you had heavy budget constraints you'd use all open
source that didn't have any performance penalties once your went into
production (aka started making money with it). hence, not only java but
linux is basically in the same boat....

free is you want it to be

what you are paying for is someones tools to help you with it and
usually, if you look around they can be found pretty free too...

however, many people have an attitude that if i don't pay for it then it
can't be worth anything... hence, to my dismay, companies like borland
are charging thousands of dollars for a single developers licences in
some cases

only in america

- perry

Chris wrote:
> Can someone explain to me if Java can be used freely like other
> softwares like C++.Perl, PHP or I have to pay for its license once I
> used it in programming in a company or in a website or e-commerce.
>
> Is Java really opensource or not?
> And so when will be the time you have to pay for its license?
>
> Thanks!!!