Where do I begin?

[Rob Mohr]

The following URL provides links to the relevant pages for resrictions
and requirements for obtaining a non-commercial license to the Sun JDK
source:

http://java.sun.com/nav/business/source_form.html

You will find links to the actual license agreement which is in PDF
format as well as the application form and other relevant information.

Rob Mohr

(P.S.  I have no interest in getting involved in the shitting match on
this topic which has unsued on this list.  I am only pointing out the
location of the documents John asked about.  As you can tell from the
agreement, it is not limited to educational usage.  It is more aimed at
providing a means to stimulate 3rd party ports to additional hardware
platforms.  At least that was my interpretation.  Your mileage may
vary.)

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	John D. Gwinner [SMTP:gwinner at northnet.org]
> Sent:	Monday, March 09, 1998 7:32 AM
> To:	Anthony.Kimball at East.Sun.COM
> Cc:	alk at pobox.com; bothner at cygnus.com; mayoff at dqd.com;
> rdi at interlog.com; kaffe at kaffe.org
> Subject:	Re: Where do I begin? 
> 
>  Tony:
> 
> >They have.  You don't have to pay a dime to download the JDK source
> >code.
> 
> Do you have the URL?  They wanted $150,000 from me to download the
> source,
> but addmitedly this was before the JNI, their policies may have
> changed.
> 
> Educational downloads don't count!
> 
> >: ... to keep intellectual property (copyright, patent, or trade
> >: secret) rights, you've got to enforce them.
> >
> >I think you are somewhat confused.  In order to claim a trade secret,
> >you must first maintain secrecy.  JavaSoft has not maintained secrecy
> >with regard to the techniques of the published JVM code.
> 
> Isn't there a legal agreement you sign when you get access to the JVM
> code?
> That agreement probably defines the source as a trade secret.  In any
> event,
> to claim a trade secret infringement the secret has to be out; if it's
> still
> secret, nobody is infringing it, correct?  So I'm not sure about your
> statement on legal basis, but we can let that slide.  It's not my main
> point.
> 
> > In order to
> >maintain proprietary rights of trademark, one must defend the
> >trademark against dilution.
> 
> And what about Copyright?
> 
> What I'm saying is that you have to enforce intellectual property
> rights, or
> they are nothing.  Nit-picking the type of intellectual property isn't
> the
> issue, the issue I was attempting to point out is that Sun *has* to
> protect
> it's copyright (and other intellectual property), thus they are forced
> to go
> after Kaffe to enforce the copyright.  Of course, lawyers will decide
> the
> best techniques and the type of intellectual property rights they are
> protecting.
> 
> If Sun let's Kaffe get away with incorporating parts of the Sun JVM
> into
> it's source, then that opens the door to other JVM's to incorporate
> Kaffe
> source.  Therefore, Sun must go after Kaffe to protect it's rights;
> it's
> best not to give Sun the chance to do this.
> 
> >I have called no one Humpty Dumpty.  I alluded to Carroll's Humpty
> >Dumpty in order to illustrate a fallacy.  I believe it was this
> >character who insisted that words meant what he wished them to mean,
> >thereby rendering effective discourse very difficult.
> 
> 
> What you said actually was "You sound like Humpty-Dumpty." which is
> still
> ad-hominem [sp?]
> vice saying "I'm not sure we agree on the terms we're arguing about".
> 
>         == John ==
>