Skip to main content

Please put source into CVS

13 replies [Last post]
mernst
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-19
Points: 0

Hello J2SE meisters,

you could make my life a lot easier, if you provided the JDK source bundle via CVS. Note I'm not talking about write access; I just want a convenient way to

a) not download tens of megabytes every week
b) easily merge updates with patches I'm preparing
c) easily get the diff to submit my patch

Right now, everyone has to do the versioning himself.

Thanks for considering
Matthias

Reply viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
trembovetski
Offline
Joined: 2003-12-31
Points: 0

Thanks for the explanation!

Well, whatever our lawyers come up with, we'll see. People _are_ working on CVS access to the source code, from what I heard.

Dmitri

mernst
Offline
Joined: 2005-02-19
Points: 0

Any news on this? I tried to ping Ray Gans on his recent blog but to no avail.

trembovetski
Offline
Joined: 2003-12-31
Points: 0

I believe this is being worked on.

Dmitri
Java2D Team

gfx
Offline
Joined: 2003-06-14
Points: 0

I also believe it's being worked on.

robilad
Offline
Joined: 2004-05-05
Points: 0

It'd be hard to enforce the click-through proprietary license if there is nothing to click through, though. The users wouldn't have a license at all to the code they downöpad from CVS.

I'd doubt you'll get that past Sun's legal.

cheers,
dalibor topic

trembovetski
Offline
Joined: 2003-12-31
Points: 0

Why not? You agree to the license, you get login/password to the repository.

Dmitri

robilad
Offline
Joined: 2004-05-05
Points: 0

Well, given that the JRL says absolutely nothing about passwords ... you'd need at least a new license for the password scheme, and a new license to cover both the password contract and the application to the proprietary Mustang code. Some kind of NDA/trade secret mumbo-jumbo.

Given that the JRL does not play nice with other proprietary licenses (see JIUL FAQ), you'd have to relicense the Mustang code base under the new JRL+CVS license.

Relicensing Mustang and scrapping the JRL is going to be fun with the management. I'm not holding my breath.

cheers,
dalibor topic

trembovetski
Offline
Joined: 2003-12-31
Points: 0

I don't see anything in the JRL about a click-through. The FAQ mentions it, but not the license itself.

I just don't see any difference. You need to click to accept the license and get the access to the code now. You will still need to click-through and accept it to get the access, it's just the way you get the access is different.

But then again, IANAL, of course..

Dmitri

robilad
Offline
Joined: 2004-05-05
Points: 0

OK, let's work this out from the basics.

Mustang is proprietary software, i.e. Sun does not want you to freely copy, modify, redistribute it, etc, and wants to be sure that they have additional rights on your works that go beyound the rights granted to them as authors of Mustang by copyright law, for example to limit your right to use to specific kinds of usage only.

So the license Mustang is under is a proprietary software license, that has to go beyound the scope of copyright law in order to work whatever shiny legal magic Sun wants it to work on top of it, like prohibit commercial use.

For such an agreement to be legally binding, it needs to be a contract between two parties. The other party needs to express explicit consent to the terms of the contract. And thus click-through licenses were born.

If the agreement is not legally binding, Sun can't go to court if it has to to enforce non-commercial usage, for example, so ... it needs to have its proprietary software behind such wacky click-through schemes.

OK, with the basics out of the way, the fundamental difference between CVS and web access is that anyone accessing the code over the web has to click through, and accept the license, to get it.

That's not the case with CVS, since it does not enforce a click through licenses, so if someone can hand their CVS pass to others, you've suddendly got a problem in court wrt to showing that you have a valid contract with the third party that allows you to prosecute them for, for example, using Mustang commercially, if they can point to a set of keys and say that they got those on eBay from someone else.

So you need separate licenses for the password scheme, and a license tying it all together with Mustang's license, and/or to relicense. Or, of course, Sun could give up ever prosecuting companies that violate it's IP license, but ... I don't see the management going for that, yet. ;)

cheers,
dalibor topic

trembovetski
Offline
Joined: 2003-12-31
Points: 0

> That's not the case with CVS, since it does not enforce
> a click through licenses, so if someone can hand their
> CVS pass to others, you've suddendly got a problem in
> court wrt to showing that you have a valid contract with
> the third party that allows you to prosecute them for,
> for example, using Mustang commercially, if they can
> point to a set of keys and say that they got those on
> eBay from someone else.

How's this different from me clicking through the license and allowing you to download the source from my system under my account?

I'm genuinely curious.

Dmitri

robilad
Offline
Joined: 2004-05-05
Points: 0

In one case you are violating Sun's license by redistributing their works to me, since I am not a JRL/JDL/JIUL licensee, in the other case you are only redistributing a username/password combination, and thus not violating Sun's license, as it stands today.

The username/password combination is unlikely to be protected by copyright, since it not an original, creative work.

So you need an explicit, additional contract to cover how the key/password combination may be redistributed (presumably: not at all), and how it hangs together with the CVS access.

cheers,
dalibor topic

alexlamsl
Offline
Joined: 2004-09-02
Points: 0

> The username/password combination is unlikely to be
> protected by copyright, since it not an original,
> creative work.

Surely it has to be [b]original[/b], if not creative as well. :D

robilad
Offline
Joined: 2004-05-05
Points: 0

You can't copyright single words, in particular you can't claim copyright on people's names, since Sun didn't came up with the words 'dmitri' or 'alexlamsl', and Sun can't copyright arbitrary, random strings either, since there is nothing original, creative in that. That's all that there is to a cvs password: a name, and a random n-character string.

The copyright law puts a small treshhold on copyrightability in order to prevent copyright abuse. Attempting to abuse copyright can lead to penalties, like losing one's own copyrights. Not a good thing, if you are trying to keep Java as proprietary as you can in order to profit from selling commercial usage rights.

cheers,
dalibor topic