Re: Stupid eclipse/android question

Discussion in 'Java' started by Alessio Stalla, Mar 2, 2011.

  1. On Wednesday, March 2, 2011 1:40:37 AM UTC+1, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    > On 28-02-2011 16:37, Lew wrote:
    > > On Feb 28, 3:50 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<>
    > > wrote:
    > >> On 28/02/2011 20:42, Stefan Ram wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<> writes:
    > >>>> On 28/02/2011 20:29, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
    > >>>>> Please don't tell me you pressed the red button.
    > >>>> The one that said "Do Not Press"?
    > >>
    > >>> You acknowledge that Licensed Software is not designed
    > >>> or intended for use in the design, construction,
    > >>> operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility.
    > >>
    > >>> http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/j2re-1_4_2_02-license.html
    > >>
    > >> Shit.
    > >> Back to Basic for my home nuke then.
    > >>

    > >
    > > Seriously, you're citing the Java 1.4 license? Who uses Java 1.4?
    > >
    > > Java 6 has the same restriction if you use Oracle's version.
    > >
    > > The question is harder to answer for OpenJDK. The Sun binary license
    > > for OpenJDK has the no-nukes clause but the GPL does not. The binary
    > > license does not mention Oracle.

    >
    > I don't think they can have the clause for OpenJDK.
    >
    > From the definition of open source:
    > http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
    >
    > "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in
    > a specific field of endeavor."
    >
    > I think that makes an exclude for nuclear-power-plants incompatible.


    But Oracle's license does not prohibit use in nuclear power plants, it justwarns you that the software is not designed for such a use (i.e. if you douse it and it fails, Oracle is not accountable).
     
    Alessio Stalla, Mar 2, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alessio Stalla

    Paul Cager Guest

    On Mar 2, 3:24 pm, Alessio Stalla <> wrote:
    > On Wednesday, March 2, 2011 1:40:37 AM UTC+1, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    > > On 28-02-2011 16:37, Lew wrote:
    > > > On Feb 28, 3:50 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<>
    > > > wrote:
    > > >> On 28/02/2011 20:42, Stefan Ram wrote:

    >
    > > >>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<>    writes:
    > > >>>> On 28/02/2011 20:29, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
    > > >>>>> Please don't tell me you pressed the red button.
    > > >>>> The one that said "Do Not Press"?

    >
    > > >>>          You acknowledge that Licensed Software is not designed
    > > >>>         or intended for use in the design, construction,
    > > >>>         operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility.

    >
    > > >>>http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/j2re-1_4_2_02-license.html

    >
    > > >> Shit.
    > > >> Back to Basic for my home nuke then.

    >
    > > > Seriously, you're citing the Java 1.4 license?  Who uses Java 1.4?

    >
    > > > Java 6 has the same restriction if you use Oracle's version.

    >
    > > > The question is harder to answer for OpenJDK.  The Sun binary license
    > > > for OpenJDK has the no-nukes clause but the GPL does not.  The binary
    > > > license does not mention Oracle.

    >
    > > I don't think they can have the clause for OpenJDK.

    >
    > >  From the definition of open source:
    > >    http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

    >
    > > "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in
    > > a specific field of endeavor."

    >
    > > I think that makes an exclude for nuclear-power-plants incompatible.

    >
    > But Oracle's license does not prohibit use in nuclear power plants, it just warns you that the software is not designed for such a use (i.e. if you do use it and it fails, Oracle is not accountable).


    Interesting. It used to be stricter (at least for JavaCC):

    "You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or
    intended for use in the design, construction, operation or
    maintenance of any nuclear facility."

    That did indeed conflict with many definitions of Free Software.
     
    Paul Cager, Mar 2, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alessio Stalla

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 02-03-2011 11:03, Paul Cager wrote:
    > On Mar 2, 3:24 pm, Alessio Stalla<> wrote:
    >> On Wednesday, March 2, 2011 1:40:37 AM UTC+1, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >>> On 28-02-2011 16:37, Lew wrote:
    >>>> On Feb 28, 3:50 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>> On 28/02/2011 20:42, Stefan Ram wrote:

    >>
    >>>>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<> writes:
    >>>>>>> On 28/02/2011 20:29, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
    >>>>>>>> Please don't tell me you pressed the red button.
    >>>>>>> The one that said "Do Not Press"?

    >>
    >>>>>> You acknowledge that Licensed Software is not designed
    >>>>>> or intended for use in the design, construction,
    >>>>>> operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility.

    >>
    >>>>>> http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/j2re-1_4_2_02-license.html

    >>
    >>>>> Shit.
    >>>>> Back to Basic for my home nuke then.

    >>
    >>>> Seriously, you're citing the Java 1.4 license? Who uses Java 1.4?

    >>
    >>>> Java 6 has the same restriction if you use Oracle's version.

    >>
    >>>> The question is harder to answer for OpenJDK. The Sun binary license
    >>>> for OpenJDK has the no-nukes clause but the GPL does not. The binary
    >>>> license does not mention Oracle.

    >>
    >>> I don't think they can have the clause for OpenJDK.

    >>
    >>> From the definition of open source:
    >>> http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd

    >>
    >>> "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in
    >>> a specific field of endeavor."

    >>
    >>> I think that makes an exclude for nuclear-power-plants incompatible.

    >>
    >> But Oracle's license does not prohibit use in nuclear power plants, it just warns you that the software is not designed for such a use (i.e. if you do use it and it fails, Oracle is not accountable).

    >
    > Interesting. It used to be stricter (at least for JavaCC):
    >
    > "You acknowledge that this software is not designed, licensed or
    > intended for use in the design, construction, operation or
    > maintenance of any nuclear facility."
    >
    > That did indeed conflict with many definitions of Free Software.


    It looks as if the dropped the license part going from 1.3.x to
    1.4.x.

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Mar 3, 2011
    #3
  4. Alessio Stalla

    Arne Vajhøj Guest

    On 02-03-2011 10:24, Alessio Stalla wrote:
    > On Wednesday, March 2, 2011 1:40:37 AM UTC+1, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
    >> On 28-02-2011 16:37, Lew wrote:
    >>> On Feb 28, 3:50 pm, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>> On 28/02/2011 20:42, Stefan Ram wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax<> writes:
    >>>>>> On 28/02/2011 20:29, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
    >>>>>>> Please don't tell me you pressed the red button.
    >>>>>> The one that said "Do Not Press"?
    >>>>
    >>>>> You acknowledge that Licensed Software is not designed
    >>>>> or intended for use in the design, construction,
    >>>>> operation or maintenance of any nuclear facility.
    >>>>
    >>>>> http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.4.2/j2re-1_4_2_02-license.html
    >>>>
    >>>> Shit.
    >>>> Back to Basic for my home nuke then.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Seriously, you're citing the Java 1.4 license? Who uses Java 1.4?
    >>>
    >>> Java 6 has the same restriction if you use Oracle's version.
    >>>
    >>> The question is harder to answer for OpenJDK. The Sun binary license
    >>> for OpenJDK has the no-nukes clause but the GPL does not. The binary
    >>> license does not mention Oracle.

    >>
    >> I don't think they can have the clause for OpenJDK.
    >>
    >> From the definition of open source:
    >> http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
    >>
    >> "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in
    >> a specific field of endeavor."
    >>
    >> I think that makes an exclude for nuclear-power-plants incompatible.

    >
    > But Oracle's license does not prohibit use in nuclear power plants, it just warns you that the software is not designed for such a use (i.e. if you do use it and it fails, Oracle is not accountable).


    You are correct.

    Even though I don't think SUN/Oracle accepts responsibility for
    failures in any other field.

    Arne
     
    Arne Vajhøj, Mar 3, 2011
    #4
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Brandon McCombs
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    780
    Richard Wheeldon
    Aug 28, 2006
  2. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,170
    Hendrik Maryns
    Mar 5, 2007
  3. rincewind

    stupid, STUPID question!

    rincewind, Apr 19, 2009, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    1,381
  4. Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

    Eclipse, Netbeans, Android

    Dirk Bruere at NeoPax, Nov 18, 2010, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    3,705
    Arne Vajhøj
    Nov 21, 2010
  5. Dirk Bruere at NeoPax

    Stupid eclipse/android question

    Dirk Bruere at NeoPax, Feb 28, 2011, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    16
    Views:
    1,074
    Arne Vajhøj
    Mar 2, 2011
  6. appman
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    592
    appman
    Apr 24, 2011
  7. Stef Mientki
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    871
    Stef Mientki
    Nov 27, 2011
  8. sterta bole
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,213
    sterta bole
    Aug 27, 2012
Loading...