OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing

[Kevin Regan]

A portion of our client library (.so) uses JNI and is loaded into our Java application.  Does this client library now fall under the OpenJDK license?  Does this libraries source code need to be shared?  Are there any other licensing issues to be aware of when working with JNI?

Sincerely,
Kevin Regan



_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009

[Dalibor Topic-5]

Kevin Regan wrote:
>
> A portion of our client library (.so) uses JNI and is loaded into our Java application.  Does this client library now fall under the OpenJDK license?  Does this libraries source code need to be shared?  Are there any other licensing issues to be aware of when working with JNI?

Hi Kevin,

The licensing FAQ is at http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g .

cheers,
dalibor topic
--
*******************************************************************
Dalibor Topic                   Tel: [phone]
Java F/OSS Ambassador           AIM: robiladonaim
Sun Microsystems GmbH           Mobile: [phone]
Nagelsweg 55                    http://openjdk.java.net
D-20097 Hamburg                 mailto:Dalibor.Topic@...
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028
Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring

[Kevin Regan]

Thank you for the response.  I've read the FAQ.  However, I don't see any references to JNI.  I do see the Classpath exception.  However, I'm not sure how it applies to JNI.

Is there a specific link within the license section that covers this?

--Kevin

> Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 02:43:04 +0200
> From: Dalibor.Topic@...
> Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI  -- licensing
> To: galabar@...
> CC: discuss@...
>
> Kevin Regan wrote:
> >
> > A portion of our client library (.so) uses JNI and is loaded into our Java application.  Does this client library now fall under the OpenJDK license?  Does this libraries source code need to be shared?  Are there any other licensing issues to be aware of when working with JNI?
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> The licensing FAQ is at http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g .
>
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
> --
> *******************************************************************
> Dalibor Topic                   Tel: [phone]
> Java F/OSS Ambassador           AIM: robiladonaim
> Sun Microsystems GmbH           Mobile: [phone]
> Nagelsweg 55                    http://openjdk.java.net
> D-20097 Hamburg                 mailto:Dalibor.Topic@...
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
> Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028
> Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009

[Kevin Regan]

Maybe I can be a bit more specific.

I'm reading the Classpath exception as meaning that a compiled java .class file that is run with the JRE would otherwise be subject to the GPL, if not for the exception.  Is this correct?  Does this extend to JNI libraries (that do not reference any OpenJDK code) that are actually linked into the JRE through a dynamic library at runtime?

--Kevin

> From: galabar@...
> To: dalibor.topic@...
> Subject: RE: OpenJDK and JNI  -- licensing
> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 19:57:59 -0500
> CC: discuss@...
>
>
> Thank you for the response.  I've read the FAQ.  However, I don't see any references to JNI.  I do see the Classpath exception.  However, I'm not sure how it applies to JNI.
>
> Is there a specific link within the license section that covers this?
>
> --Kevin
>
>
> > Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 02:43:04 +0200
> > From: Dalibor.Topic@...
> > Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI  -- licensing
> > To: galabar@...
> > CC: discuss@...
> >
> > Kevin Regan wrote:
> > >
> > > A portion of our client library (.so) uses JNI and is loaded into our Java application.  Does this client library now fall under the OpenJDK license?  Does this libraries source code need to be shared?  Are there any other licensing issues to be aware of when working with JNI?
> >
> > Hi Kevin,
> >
> > The licensing FAQ is at http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g .
> >
> > cheers,
> > dalibor topic
> > --
> > *******************************************************************
> > Dalibor Topic                   Tel: [phone]
> > Java F/OSS Ambassador           AIM: robiladonaim
> > Sun Microsystems GmbH           Mobile: [phone]
> > Nagelsweg 55                    http://openjdk.java.net
> > D-20097 Hamburg                 mailto:Dalibor.Topic@...
> > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
> > Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028
> > Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
> > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
> http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009

[Kevin Regan]

I'm seeing that the only file in the hotspot code to have the Classpath exception is jni_zero.cpp.  Can I assume from this that JNI code falls under then Classpath exception?

--Kevin

> > Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 02:43:04 +0200
> > From: Dalibor.Topic@...
> > Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI  -- licensing
> > To: galabar@...
> > CC: discuss@...
> >
> > Kevin Regan wrote:
> > >
> > > A portion of our client library (.so) uses JNI and is loaded into our Java application.  Does this client library now fall under the OpenJDK license?  Does this libraries source code need to be shared?  Are there any other licensing issues to be aware of when working with JNI?
> >
> > Hi Kevin,
> >
> > The licensing FAQ is at http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g .
> >
> > cheers,
> > dalibor topic
> > --
> > *******************************************************************
> > Dalibor Topic                   Tel: [phone]
> > Java F/OSS Ambassador           AIM: robiladonaim
> > Sun Microsystems GmbH           Mobile: [phone]
> > Nagelsweg 55                    http://openjdk.java.net
> > D-20097 Hamburg                 mailto:Dalibor.Topic@...
> > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
> > Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028
> > Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
> > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
> http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage.
http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009

[Kevin Regan]

That is jni_zero.h (not .cpp).

--Kevin

> From: galabar@...
> To: dalibor.topic@...; discuss@...
> Subject: RE: OpenJDK and JNI  -- licensing
> Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 14:31:12 -0500
>
>
> I'm seeing that the only file in the hotspot code to have the Classpath exception is jni_zero.cpp.  Can I assume from this that JNI code falls under then Classpath exception?
>
> --Kevin
>
>
> > > Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 02:43:04 +0200
> > > From: Dalibor.Topic@...
> > > Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI  -- licensing
> > > To: galabar@...
> > > CC: discuss@...
> > >
> > > Kevin Regan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A portion of our client library (.so) uses JNI and is loaded into our Java application.  Does this client library now fall under the OpenJDK license?  Does this libraries source code need to be shared?  Are there any other licensing issues to be aware of when working with JNI?
> > >
> > > Hi Kevin,
> > >
> > > The licensing FAQ is at http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g .
> > >
> > > cheers,
> > > dalibor topic
> > > --
> > > *******************************************************************
> > > Dalibor Topic                   Tel: [phone]
> > > Java F/OSS Ambassador           AIM: robiladonaim
> > > Sun Microsystems GmbH           Mobile: [phone]
> > > Nagelsweg 55                    http://openjdk.java.net
> > > D-20097 Hamburg                 mailto:Dalibor.Topic@...
> > > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
> > > Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028
> > > Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
> > > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring
> > >
> > >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
> > http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage.
> http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009

[Mark Wielaard]

Hi Kevin,

On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 12:56 -0500, Kevin Regan wrote:
> I'm reading the Classpath exception as meaning that a compiled
> java .class file that is run with the JRE would otherwise be subject
> to the GPL, if not for the exception.  Is this correct?

Yes.

>   Does this extend to JNI libraries (that do not reference any OpenJDK
> code) that are actually linked into the JRE through a dynamic library
> at runtime?

The exception is not specific to any language (be it a module written in
java, c, c++, etc). So it covers anything written that is an independent
module according to the exception clause.

If that isn't clear, then maybe someone from Sun can update the openjdk
legal page and/or faq.

Cheers,

Mark

[Dalibor Topic-5]

Kevin Regan wrote:
> I'm reading the Classpath exception as meaning that a compiled java .class file that is run with the JRE would otherwise be subject to the GPL, if not for the exception.  Is this correct?  Does this extend to JNI libraries (that do not reference any OpenJDK code) that are actually linked into the JRE through a dynamic library at runtime?

Hi Kevin,

I believe that your first question is answered by
http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g6

and that the second question is answered by
http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g20
http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g21
http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g28

If you need specific legal advice, I am afraid that I
can't be of much help there, not being a lawyer myself.

cheers,
dalibor topic
--
*******************************************************************
Dalibor Topic                   Tel: [phone]
Java F/OSS Ambassador           AIM: robiladonaim
Sun Microsystems GmbH           Mobile: [phone]
Nagelsweg 55                    http://openjdk.java.net
D-20097 Hamburg                 mailto:Dalibor.Topic@...
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028
Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring

[Kevin Regan]

Hi Dalibor,

 

Thanks you for the response.  I guess you've been instructed to only answer licensing questions by pointing to the FAQ.

 

Looking at the JNI headers in the OpenJDK distribution, they do include the "Classpath exception" text.  So, I'm going to assume that JNI applications do not fall under the GPL.

 

Is this correct?  Just kidding -- you don't need to answer that. ;-)

 

Thanks again,

Kevin
 

> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:03:07 +0200
> From: Dalibor.Topic@...
> Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing
> To: galabar@...
> CC: discuss@...
>
> Kevin Regan wrote:
> > I'm reading the Classpath exception as meaning that a compiled java .class file that is run with the JRE would otherwise be subject to the GPL, if not for the exception. Is this correct? Does this extend to JNI libraries (that do not reference any OpenJDK code) that are actually linked into the JRE through a dynamic library at runtime?
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> I believe that your first question is answered by
> http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g6
>
> and that the second question is answered by
> http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g20
> http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g21
> http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g28
>
> If you need specific legal advice, I am afraid that I
> can't be of much help there, not being a lawyer myself.
>
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
> --
> *******************************************************************
> Dalibor Topic Tel: [phone]
> Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim
> Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: [phone]
> Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net
> D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic@...
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
> Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028
> Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009

[Volker Simonis]

Hi,

I've read the mentioned several times in the past and I reread them
from time to time, just because they are like a good book - you always
find something new in there, most of the time you even think you never
read them before:)

But seriously, I always found it quite strange the the HotSpot VM,
which in the end is one monolithic shared library (libjvm.{so,dll}) is
build from files with different licenses. And in the FAQ, linking an
application to the VM is interpreted in the sense of the include files
which are used in order to compile the application.

In this special case, if I understood the thread right, Kevin builds a
commercial application which includes "jni.h" at compile time. That's
ok, because "jni.h" has the classpath exception. But in the end (i.e.
at runtime) he dynamically loads the HotSpot (by calling
JNI_CreateJavaVM) or the VM calls his application by menas of JNI and
in my eyes, that's not ok, because the HotSpot VM (i.e.
libjvm.{so,dll}) is mostly build from files which are pure GPL.

It may be the case, that until now, nobody really cared about this,
but from my point of view, that's a clear violation of the GPL,
because the FSF is very clear about the fact that linking a dynamic
library constitutes a "derived work" in the GPL sense (see for example
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF). So either
the whole HotSpot must have the classpath exception, or linking a
non-GPL program against will violate the GPL.

Regards,
Volker

On 7/7/09, Dalibor Topic <Dalibor.Topic@...> wrote:

> Kevin Regan wrote:
>  > I'm reading the Classpath exception as meaning that a compiled java .class file that is run with the JRE would otherwise be subject to the GPL, if not for the exception.  Is this correct?  Does this extend to JNI libraries (that do not reference any OpenJDK code) that are actually linked into the JRE through a dynamic library at runtime?
>
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
>  I believe that your first question is answered by
>  http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g6
>
>  and that the second question is answered by
>  http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g20
>  http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g21
>  http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g28
>
>  If you need specific legal advice, I am afraid that I
>  can't be of much help there, not being a lawyer myself.
>
>
>  cheers,
>  dalibor topic
>  --
>  *******************************************************************
>  Dalibor Topic                   Tel: [phone]
>  Java F/OSS Ambassador           AIM: robiladonaim
>  Sun Microsystems GmbH           Mobile: [phone]
>  Nagelsweg 55                    http://openjdk.java.net
>  D-20097 Hamburg                 mailto:Dalibor.Topic@...
>  Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
>  Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028
>  Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
>  Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring
>
>
>

[Kevin Regan]

Hi Volker,

 

Thanks for the reply.  You bring up valid concerns.  It would be great if Sun could give some specific examples in the FAQ to allay our fears.  For example, they might look at three applications:

 

A) Pure Java .class files

B) JNI Application

C) Application that extends the JRE functionality by linking with non-Classpath exception files in the JRE itself

 

Each application could be shown and explained in terms of how it interacts with the OpenJDK license.  I understand that ambiguity is great for selling more commercial licenses.  However, I doubt that it Sun's goal here, and a few example could help tremendously.

 

--Kevin
 

> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:04:29 +0200
> Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing
> From: volker.simonis@...
> To: Dalibor.Topic@...
> CC: galabar@...; discuss@...
>
> Hi,
>
> I've read the mentioned several times in the past and I reread them
> from time to time, just because they are like a good book - you always
> find something new in there, most of the time you even think you never
> read them before:)
>
> But seriously, I always found it quite strange the the HotSpot VM,
> which in the end is one monolithic shared library (libjvm.{so,dll}) is
> build from files with different licenses. And in the FAQ, linking an
> application to the VM is interpreted in the sense of the include files
> which are used in order to compile the application.
>
> In this special case, if I understood the thread right, Kevin builds a
> commercial application which includes "jni.h" at compile time. That's
> ok, because "jni.h" has the classpath exception. But in the end (i.e.
> at runtime) he dynamically loads the HotSpot (by calling
> JNI_CreateJavaVM) or the VM calls his application by menas of JNI and
> in my eyes, that's not ok, because the HotSpot VM (i.e.
> libjvm.{so,dll}) is mostly build from files which are pure GPL.
>
> It may be the case, that until now, nobody really cared about this,
> but from my point of view, that's a clear violation of the GPL,
> because the FSF is very clear about the fact that linking a dynamic
> library constitutes a "derived work" in the GPL sense (see for example
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF). So either
> the whole HotSpot must have the classpath exception, or linking a
> non-GPL program against will violate the GPL.
>
> Regards,
> Volker
>
> On 7/7/09, Dalibor Topic <Dalibor.Topic@...> wrote:
> > Kevin Regan wrote:
> > > I'm reading the Classpath exception as meaning that a compiled java .class file that is run with the JRE would otherwise be subject to the GPL, if not for the exception. Is this correct? Does this extend to JNI libraries (that do not reference any OpenJDK code) that are actually linked into the JRE through a dynamic library at runtime?
> >
> >
> > Hi Kevin,
> >
> > I believe that your first question is answered by
> > http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g6
> >
> > and that the second question is answered by
> > http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g20
> > http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g21
> > http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g28
> >
> > If you need specific legal advice, I am afraid that I
> > can't be of much help there, not being a lawyer myself.
> >
> >
> > cheers,
> > dalibor topic
> > --
> > *******************************************************************
> > Dalibor Topic Tel: [phone]
> > Java F/OSS Ambassador AIM: robiladonaim
> > Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: [phone]
> > Nagelsweg 55 http://openjdk.java.net
> > D-20097 Hamburg mailto:Dalibor.Topic@...
> > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
> > Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028
> > Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
> > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring
> >
> >
> >

_________________________________________________________________
Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail®.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009

[Dalibor Topic-5]

Kevin Regan wrote:
> It would be great if Sun could give some specific examples in the FAQ to allay our fears.

It does, actually: http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g33
There are plenty of examples in the demo and samples sections of the OpenJDK
source code covering all kinds of use scenarios, with or without JNI.
 
What the FAQ can't do is to provide an answer for any arbitrary scenario
someone comes up with -  as human imagination knows few boundaries, that's
ultimately what professional legal advice is for. You won't find it here,
though, in case that's not been obvious from all the replies so far - this
is a mailing list for developers.

What the FAQ also can't do is to explain the basics of the GPL, software
licensing, etc - there are plenty of resources that can explain the
mechanics of all that, in particular there are legal professionals who
can offer such advice where necessary. As you'd expect, that's all mentioned
in the FAQ, too: http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g20

Finally, my answers are linking to the FAQ because it saves me the effort
to type paragraphs like this one that point out the obvious.[1] ;)

cheers,
dalibor topic

[1] I wrestled with myself for a bit trying to figure out whether to include
this joke paragraph or not - but given that it's late in the evening over here
in Germany, I'll pat myself on the back for managing to sneak in a
self-referential paragraph into the discussion ;)

It'd be cool if replies to this post were haikus - licensing discussions tend
to produce boring prose without some concentrated effort to make them fun.
--
*******************************************************************
Dalibor Topic                   Tel: [phone]
Java F/OSS Ambassador           AIM: robiladonaim
Sun Microsystems GmbH           Mobile: [phone]
Nagelsweg 55                    http://openjdk.java.net
D-20097 Hamburg                 mailto:Dalibor.Topic@...
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028
Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring

[Kevin Regan]

I'm not asking licensing issues about demo or sample code.  I'm asking for samples explaining how the license applies to JNI and pure Java applications.

This certainly is not a flight of human imagination.  Most developers are going to want to know (a) if their pure Java class files fall under the GPL and (b) if their JNI code falls under the GPL.  I might agree if we took it further than that.  There is no need for lawyers here.  You know the answer to this and can provide it directly.

I think it is telling that you have yet to say that "yes, JNI code falls under the Classpath exception and does not become subject to the GPL."  We could have avoided many emails if this was your original response (along with a link to the FAQ).

Maybe we could end this discussion with you agreeing to the quoted portion above? :-)

--Kevin

> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 23:16:50 +0200
> From: Dalibor.Topic@...
> Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing
> To: galabar@...
> CC: volker.simonis@...; discuss@...
>
> Kevin Regan wrote:
> > It would be great if Sun could give some specific examples in the FAQ to allay our fears.
>
> It does, actually: http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g33
> There are plenty of examples in the demo and samples sections of the OpenJDK
> source code covering all kinds of use scenarios, with or without JNI.
>  
> What the FAQ can't do is to provide an answer for any arbitrary scenario
> someone comes up with -  as human imagination knows few boundaries, that's
> ultimately what professional legal advice is for. You won't find it here,
> though, in case that's not been obvious from all the replies so far - this
> is a mailing list for developers.
>
> What the FAQ also can't do is to explain the basics of the GPL, software
> licensing, etc - there are plenty of resources that can explain the
> mechanics of all that, in particular there are legal professionals who
> can offer such advice where necessary. As you'd expect, that's all mentioned
> in the FAQ, too: http://www.sun.com/software/opensource/java/faq.jsp#g20
>
> Finally, my answers are linking to the FAQ because it saves me the effort
> to type paragraphs like this one that point out the obvious.[1] ;)
>
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
>
> [1] I wrestled with myself for a bit trying to figure out whether to include
> this joke paragraph or not - but given that it's late in the evening over here
> in Germany, I'll pat myself on the back for managing to sneak in a
> self-referential paragraph into the discussion ;)
>
> It'd be cool if replies to this post were haikus - licensing discussions tend
> to produce boring prose without some concentrated effort to make them fun.
> --
> *******************************************************************
> Dalibor Topic                   Tel: [phone]
> Java F/OSS Ambassador           AIM: robiladonaim
> Sun Microsystems GmbH           Mobile: [phone]
> Nagelsweg 55                    http://openjdk.java.net
> D-20097 Hamburg                 mailto:Dalibor.Topic@...
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
> Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028
> Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage.
http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009

[Dalibor Topic-5]

Kevin Regan wrote:
> I'm asking for samples explaining how the license applies to JNI and pure Java applications.

Let me quote from the FAQ I referred to in the mail you're just replying to:

"Q:
Are there any other licenses used in the OpenJDK code base besides the ones you've already described?
A:
Yes. The demo and sample code modules are released under the BSD license. These code elements are intended to be very widely distributed, freely modified and used. Accordingly, we've chosen the BSD license as most appropriate for these uses. *Because these components are not part of the JDK but rather are application programs, they need not be under the GPL license because of the Classpath exception.*"[emphasis mine]

You can find the samples you're looking for (both pure Java applications, and those using JNI) in the folders containing BSD licensed demo and sample application programs.

I can only assume that the issues you're having with the FAQ are based on an assumption that using or not using JNI makes a major difference in terms of the effect of the license, so I'd kindly suggest reading the license terms, and/or the FAQ and/or asking a legal professional for advice.

cheers,
dalibor topic
--
*******************************************************************
Dalibor Topic                   Tel: [phone]
Java F/OSS Ambassador           AIM: robiladonaim
Sun Microsystems GmbH           Mobile: [phone]
Nagelsweg 55                    http://openjdk.java.net
D-20097 Hamburg                 mailto:Dalibor.Topic@...
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028
Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring

[Kevin Regan]

So, let me get this straight.  I need to first understand the Classpath exception, then find this entry in the FAQ about alternate licenses (that I otherwise would not be looking for), track down these demo applications, notice that at least one of them is JNI, and then assume from the wording of "Because these components are not part of the JDK but rather are
application programs, they need not be under the GPL license because of
the Classpath exception" that my JNI applications are also not encumbered by the GPL?

You are absolutely serious in putting forth that this is sufficient for most developers to answer this question (are JNI applications subject to the GPL)?  You are stating that most developers will come to the FAQ and easily track down this information?

So, clearly, from following this procedure, we've surmised JNI applications are not subject to the GPL, correct?

--Kevin

> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 01:58:03 +0200
> From: Dalibor.Topic@...
> Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing
> To: galabar@...
> CC: discuss@...
>
> Kevin Regan wrote:
> > I'm asking for samples explaining how the license applies to JNI and pure Java applications.
>
> Let me quote from the FAQ I referred to in the mail you're just replying to:
>
> "Q:
> Are there any other licenses used in the OpenJDK code base besides the ones you've already described?
> A:
> Yes. The demo and sample code modules are released under the BSD license. These code elements are intended to be very widely distributed, freely modified and used. Accordingly, we've chosen the BSD license as most appropriate for these uses. *Because these components are not part of the JDK but rather are application programs, they need not be under the GPL license because of the Classpath exception.*"[emphasis mine]
>
> You can find the samples you're looking for (both pure Java applications, and those using JNI) in the folders containing BSD licensed demo and sample application programs.
>
> I can only assume that the issues you're having with the FAQ are based on an assumption that using or not using JNI makes a major difference in terms of the effect of the license, so I'd kindly suggest reading the license terms, and/or the FAQ and/or asking a legal professional for advice.
>
> cheers,
> dalibor topic
> --
> *******************************************************************
> Dalibor Topic                   Tel: [phone]
> Java F/OSS Ambassador           AIM: robiladonaim
> Sun Microsystems GmbH           Mobile: [phone]
> Nagelsweg 55                    http://openjdk.java.net
> D-20097 Hamburg                 mailto:Dalibor.Topic@...
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
> Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028
> Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring
>
>

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009

[Volker Simonis]

My only point was that I don't think that Sun's interpretation of
"linking", "derived work" and "classpath exception" is in accordance
with the FSF view of these terms, especially in the case of the
HotSpot shared library which is build from files licensed under both
"pure" GPL and GPL plus classpath exception.

I don't even understand how the HotSpot shared library itself can be
build in accordance to the FSF rules, because it obviously contains
statically linked files with two different licenses, one of them
beeing the GPL!

But I may be wrong here as I'm not a lawyer...

On 7/8/09, Kevin Regan <galabar@...> wrote:

>
>
>  So, let me get this straight.  I need to first understand the Classpath exception, then find this entry in the FAQ about alternate licenses (that I otherwise would not be looking for), track down these demo applications, notice that at least one of them is JNI, and then assume from the wording of "Because these components are not part of the JDK but rather are
>
> application programs, they need not be under the GPL license because of
>
> the Classpath exception" that my JNI applications are also not encumbered by the GPL?
>
>  You are absolutely serious in putting forth that this is sufficient for most developers to answer this question (are JNI applications subject to the GPL)?  You are stating that most developers will come to the FAQ and easily track down this information?
>
>  So, clearly, from following this procedure, we've surmised JNI applications are not subject to the GPL, correct?
>
>  --Kevin
>
>  > Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 01:58:03 +0200
>
> > From: Dalibor.Topic@...
>  > Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing
>  > To: galabar@...
>
> > CC: discuss@...
>
> >
>  > Kevin Regan wrote:
>  > > I'm asking for samples explaining how the license applies to JNI and pure Java applications.
>  >
>  > Let me quote from the FAQ I referred to in the mail you're just replying to:
>  >
>  > "Q:
>  > Are there any other licenses used in the OpenJDK code base besides the ones you've already described?
>  > A:
>  > Yes. The demo and sample code modules are released under the BSD license. These code elements are intended to be very widely distributed, freely modified and used. Accordingly, we've chosen the BSD license as most appropriate for these uses. *Because these components are not part of the JDK but rather are application programs, they need not be under the GPL license because of the Classpath exception.*"[emphasis mine]
>  >
>  > You can find the samples you're looking for (both pure Java applications, and those using JNI) in the folders containing BSD licensed demo and sample application programs.
>  >
>  > I can only assume that the issues you're having with the FAQ are based on an assumption that using or not using JNI makes a major difference in terms of the effect of the license, so I'd kindly suggest reading the license terms, and/or the FAQ and/or asking a legal professional for advice.
>  >
>  > cheers,
>  > dalibor topic
>  > --
>  > *******************************************************************
>  > Dalibor Topic                   Tel: [phone]
>  > Java F/OSS Ambassador           AIM: robiladonaim
>  > Sun Microsystems GmbH           Mobile: [phone]
>  > Nagelsweg 55                    http://openjdk.java.net
>  > D-20097 Hamburg                 mailto:Dalibor.Topic@...
>  > Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
>  > Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028
>  > Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
>  > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring
>  >
>  >
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>  Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
>  http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009

[Florian Weimer-2]

* Volker Simonis:

> My only point was that I don't think that Sun's interpretation of
> "linking", "derived work" and "classpath exception" is in accordance
> with the FSF view of these terms, especially in the case of the
> HotSpot shared library which is build from files licensed under both
> "pure" GPL and GPL plus classpath exception.

There are two conflicting lines of thoughts regarding GPLed program
loaders: The first one says that loaded programs are not subject to
the loader's GPL license.  This is the stance taken by the Linux folks
for their kernel.  The second one says that the loaded program has to
be GPLed as well.  This one is sometimes cited in the Emacs Lisp
context (meaning that anything which runs on Emacs has to be GPLed).

So it's certainly a good idea for the copyright owners of such program
loaders to clarify their position on this topic.

--
Florian Weimer                <fweimer@...>
BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
Kriegsstraße 100              tel: [phone]
D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: [phone]

[Geir Magnusson Jr.-3]

I strikes me that the best thing for everyone is a FAQ entry from Sun :

"Q: Does the classpath exception apply to JNI applications running on  
OpenJDK?"

with the answer

"A: Yes"

or

"A: No"

depending on Sun's official stance on the matter.

Seems like an easy thing for Sun to provide.

geir


On Jul 7, 2009, at 8:08 PM, Kevin Regan wrote:

>
>
> So, let me get this straight.  I need to first understand the  
> Classpath exception, then find this entry in the FAQ about alternate  
> licenses (that I otherwise would not be looking for), track down  
> these demo applications, notice that at least one of them is JNI,  
> and then assume from the wording of "Because these components are  
> not part of the JDK but rather are
> application programs, they need not be under the GPL license because  
> of
> the Classpath exception" that my JNI applications are also not  
> encumbered by the GPL?
>
> You are absolutely serious in putting forth that this is sufficient  
> for most developers to answer this question (are JNI applications  
> subject to the GPL)?  You are stating that most developers will come  
> to the FAQ and easily track down this information?
>
> So, clearly, from following this procedure, we've surmised JNI  
> applications are not subject to the GPL, correct?
>
> --Kevin
>
>> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 01:58:03 +0200
>> From: Dalibor.Topic@...
>> Subject: Re: OpenJDK and JNI -- licensing
>> To: galabar@...
>> CC: discuss@...
>>
>> Kevin Regan wrote:
>>> I'm asking for samples explaining how the license applies to JNI  
>>> and pure Java applications.
>>
>> Let me quote from the FAQ I referred to in the mail you're just  
>> replying to:
>>
>> "Q:
>> Are there any other licenses used in the OpenJDK code base besides  
>> the ones you've already described?
>> A:
>> Yes. The demo and sample code modules are released under the BSD  
>> license. These code elements are intended to be very widely  
>> distributed, freely modified and used. Accordingly, we've chosen  
>> the BSD license as most appropriate for these uses. *Because these  
>> components are not part of the JDK but rather are application  
>> programs, they need not be under the GPL license because of the  
>> Classpath exception.*"[emphasis mine]
>>
>> You can find the samples you're looking for (both pure Java  
>> applications, and those using JNI) in the folders containing BSD  
>> licensed demo and sample application programs.
>>
>> I can only assume that the issues you're having with the FAQ are  
>> based on an assumption that using or not using JNI makes a major  
>> difference in terms of the effect of the license, so I'd kindly  
>> suggest reading the license terms, and/or the FAQ and/or asking a  
>> legal professional for advice.
>>
>> cheers,
>> dalibor topic
>> --
>> *******************************************************************
>> Dalibor Topic                   Tel: [phone]
>> Java F/OSS Ambassador           AIM: robiladonaim
>> Sun Microsystems GmbH           Mobile: [phone]
>> Nagelsweg 55                    http://openjdk.java.net
>> D-20097 Hamburg                 mailto:Dalibor.Topic@...
>> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sonnenallee 1, D-85551 Kirchheim-Heimstetten
>> Amtsgericht München: HRB 161028
>> Geschäftsführer: Thomas Schröder, Wolfgang Engels, Wolf Frenkel
>> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Häring
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync.
> http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009

[Volker Simonis]

Yes, I understand that conflict. But the HotSpot library libjvm.so
itself is build mostly from files which are pure GPL and some files
(in particular "jni.h") which are GPL + class path exception).

So how can "jni.cpp" (which is GPL only) include "jni.h" (which is GPL
+ class path) and finally be statically linked with other GPL only
files into a GPL-only "libjvm.so"???

On 7/8/09, Florian Weimer <fweimer@...> wrote:

> * Volker Simonis:
>
>
>  > My only point was that I don't think that Sun's interpretation of
>  > "linking", "derived work" and "classpath exception" is in accordance
>  > with the FSF view of these terms, especially in the case of the
>  > HotSpot shared library which is build from files licensed under both
>  > "pure" GPL and GPL plus classpath exception.
>
>
> There are two conflicting lines of thoughts regarding GPLed program
>  loaders: The first one says that loaded programs are not subject to
>  the loader's GPL license.  This is the stance taken by the Linux folks
>  for their kernel.  The second one says that the loaded program has to
>  be GPLed as well.  This one is sometimes cited in the Emacs Lisp
>  context (meaning that anything which runs on Emacs has to be GPLed).
>
>  So it's certainly a good idea for the copyright owners of such program
>  loaders to clarify their position on this topic.
>
>
>  --
>  Florian Weimer                <fweimer@...>
>  BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
>  Kriegsstraße 100              tel: [phone]
>  D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: [phone]
>

[Andrew Haley]

Volker Simonis wrote:
> Yes, I understand that conflict. But the HotSpot library libjvm.so
> itself is build mostly from files which are pure GPL and some files
> (in particular "jni.h") which are GPL + class path exception).
>
> So how can "jni.cpp" (which is GPL only) include "jni.h" (which is GPL
> + class path) and finally be statically linked with other GPL only
> files into a GPL-only "libjvm.so"???

Why not?  GPL'd code can use GPL+exception code.  What makes you
think otherwise?

Andrew.