Subject: Re: request for advice on proposed JDK (Java Development Kit) package

From: Guy Maor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 11:43:11 -0500 (CDT)

On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Mike Coleman wrote:

> In the process of working on a Debian package of Sun's JDK, as ported to
> Linux, I've discovered that while ports of the JDK can be made available via
> ftp, Sun now prohibits ports from being put on CDROM without a license.

Why can we not put it in non-free?

Guy

---

From: Mike Coleman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 11:00 CDT

I suspect that this means that the JDK itself cannot be put anywhere in the
Debian archive.

I see three ways to proceed from here:

1. Create a Debian package and make it available from the Linux/JDK port site.

2. Do #1, and in addition, create a "JDK pointer" package for the actual
distribution which will simply tell users where to find the JDK package, or
perhaps even try to automatically install it for them.

3. Forget the whole thing.

Any thoughts?
--Mike

---

From: Mike Coleman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 11:52 CDT

X-Authentication-Warning: brando.ece.utexas.edu: maor owned process doing -bs
   Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 11:43:11 -0500 (CDT)
   From: Guy Maor <[email-masked]>
   cc: [email-masked]

It can't be made freely available on cdrom.  I don't think cdrom vendors are
going to want to deal with "you can press our stuff, but leave out these
files".

One possible alternative would be to have a directory (or even a different
site) where ftp-only stuff could be stored.  This would only be worth it,
though, if there were a number of packages with this restriction.  (I think
this is the only one I've ever seen.)

--Mike

---

From: Guy Maor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 12:49:17 -0500 (CDT)

> going to want to deal with "you can press our stuff, but leave out these

The non-free directory is for anything is not freely distributable.  CD
vendors already leave out those files.

Guy

---

From: Mike Coleman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 96 12:52 CDT

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 18:44:42 +0100 (BST)
   From: Stephen Early <[email-masked]>
   X-Sender: [email-masked]
   cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]

   > going to want to deal with "you can press our stuff, but leave out these

   ...but that is exactly what the non-free directory is for.

This seems to be the consensus.

It does seem like it would be good to distinguish between software cdrom
vendors are allowed (or encouraged) to copy, versus software they are
forbidden to copy.

(This is relevant to the netscape-installer issue, too.  Although netscape is
not free, it would be a shame to leave the installer off of cdroms.)

Maybe we need two separate directories here.

--Mike

---

From: Guy Maor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 12:57:09 -0500 (CDT)

> vendors are allowed (or encouraged) to copy, versus software they are

Huh?

non-free - forbidden to copy
everything else - allowed to copy

Guy

---

From: Stephen Early <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 18:44:42 +0100 (BST)

Steve Early
[email-masked]