On 03/12/07 12:20, Alex Owen wrote:
> Now I engage my brain I see the "problem" is with Java 1.4.2 and the DLJ 
> only started from "Java 5".

(We haven't distributed 5 either because of the unclear/threatening 
wording of the "real" license).

Thanks for the pointer, I'll review the DLJ to see whether this 
clarifies things. At first glance the "indemnify SUN" and "enforce US 
export controls"-clauses are still in, and the FAQ that says "don't 
worry about gcj being shipped in parallel" is as such not a legal part 
of the license (even if it clarifies the intention). At least the 
"optional file list" is legal part of the license and as such would 
allow to drop the nonfunctional Kerberos bits (kinit/klist).

The whole point of the FAQ/DLJ-pages seems to be that the JDK license is 
indeed scary. But tellingly, that license has not been changed, it just 
got some fluff around it...

Best regards
jan