Skip to main content

BD-J and license issues...

1 reply [Last post]
Joined: 2010-02-15

Hi all,

I want to create a blu-ray disk that will contain only a java application in it (no movie), that this java application will implement a simple pattern generator for calibrating a tv.
I downloaded as a starting point the code from HDCookbook, and from what I understood, I have to ask for some stubs from BDA (Bluray Disk Association).
From their documents, I understood that I am allowed to evaluate and test what I will be given, but I am not able to distribute anything.
So, my question is: I have to acquire a license from BDA to distribute any disk that contains a BD-J application, no matter how simple it is?

What I want to create is quite simple: just an Xlet that fills the whole screen with a single colour, and perhaps accessing a server. I don't need any advanced BD-J features like animation, etc.

Is the whole idea of java in bluray player patented, or only some elements of it?

Does anybody knows?



Reply viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Joined: 2004-02-13

I certainly can't give any sort of opinion as to what can and can't be done, but let me give you some objective data points that might help you formulate an opinion.

First of all, the thing you need from the BDA is basically documentation, and what are known as "compilation stubs." These compilation stubs are used to compile your xlet, but you don't need to re-distribute the stubs along with your xlet. Also, it's possible to compile a BD-J xlet against platform classes (i.e. the org.bluray package) you get from some other source, where that other source might have other licensing terms. For example, the runtime of an off-the-shelf PC player probably has a .zip or a .jar file somewhere inside, parts of which could be used to compile an xlet. Given a compiled xlet, there's no way to tell which stubs it was compiled against.

For avoidance of doubt, I am not suggesting any particular course of action nor making any recommendation. I'm just stating objective technical facts.

I'd suggest carefully reading the license text considering the above, and considering it in terms of the considerations that usually go into evaluating a software license and associated business risks.