[gentoo-user] License question for jdk

[gentoo-user] License question for jdk

[Allan Gottlieb]

My update world today produced

  [nomerge       ] dev-java/icedtea-6.1.10.3  USE="hs20 nsplugin nss webstart xrender -cacao -debug -doc -examples -jamvm -javascript -nio2 -pulseaudio -systemtap -zero" 
  [nomerge       ]  dev-java/ant-nodeps-1.8.1 
  [ebuild  NS    ]   virtual/jre-1.7.0 [1.6.0] 0 kB
  [ebuild  NS    ]    virtual/jdk-1.7.0 [1.6.0] 0 kB
  [ebuild  N F   ]     dev-java/oracle-jdk-bin-1.7.0  USE="X alsa -derby -doc -examples -jce -nsplugin" 92,746 kB

  [snip]

  The following license changes are necessary to proceed:
  #required by virtual/jdk-1.7.0, required by virtual/jre-1.7.0, required by dev-java/xalan-2.7.1, required by dev-java/icedtea-6.1.10.3, required by @selected, required by @world (argument)
  >=dev-java/oracle-jdk-bin-1.7.0 Oracle-BCLA-JavaSE

  NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting
        EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" in make.conf.

  Use --autounmask-write to write changes to config files (honoring CONFIG_PROTECT).

So I need the Oracle-BCLA-JavaSE license.  But I don't see where it
tells me how to do this.  Previous license requests said something like
* go to URL xxx
* click on YYY
* store it in distfiles/ZZZ

(As an aside I had thought idedtea replaced the need for oracle/sun 's
jdk.  I do have installed sun/oracle 's java-sdk-docs.)

thanks,
allan

Re: [gentoo-user] License question for jdk

[Alex Schuster]

Allan Gottlieb writes:

> My update world today produced
> 
>   [nomerge       ] dev-java/icedtea-6.1.10.3  USE="hs20 nsplugin nss
> webstart xrender -cacao -debug -doc -examples -jamvm -javascript -nio2
> -pulseaudio -systemtap -zero" [nomerge       ]
> dev-java/ant-nodeps-1.8.1 [ebuild  NS    ]   virtual/jre-1.7.0 [1.6.0]
> 0 kB [ebuild  NS    ]    virtual/jdk-1.7.0 [1.6.0] 0 kB [ebuild  N F
> ]     dev-java/oracle-jdk-bin-1.7.0  USE="X alsa -derby -doc -examples
> -jce -nsplugin" 92,746 kB
> 
>   [snip]
> 
>   The following license changes are necessary to proceed:
>   #required by virtual/jdk-1.7.0, required by virtual/jre-1.7.0,
> required by dev-java/xalan-2.7.1, required by
> dev-java/icedtea-6.1.10.3, required by @selected, required by @world
> (argument)
>   >=dev-java/oracle-jdk-bin-1.7.0 Oracle-BCLA-JavaSE
> 
>   NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting
>         EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" in make.conf.
> 
>   Use --autounmask-write to write changes to config files (honoring
> CONFIG_PROTECT).
> 
> So I need the Oracle-BCLA-JavaSE license.  But I don't see where it
> tells me how to do this.  Previous license requests said something like
> * go to URL xxx
> * click on YYY
> * store it in distfiles/ZZZ

That is something different, when portage is not able to download
stuff.

What you need to do is to tell portage you accept the license by putting 
the >=dev-java/... line into /etc/portage/package.license. Or you could
add the --autounmask-write switch to your emerge command, and then use
etc-update/dispatch-conf/cfg-update or whatever you use to update the
config files.

	Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] License question for jdk

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

On Saturday, 10. September 2011 16:50:30 Alex Schuster wrote:
> Allan Gottlieb writes:
> > My update world today produced
> > 
> >   [nomerge       ] dev-java/icedtea-6.1.10.3  USE="hs20 nsplugin nss
> > 
> > webstart xrender -cacao -debug -doc -examples -jamvm -javascript -nio2
> > -pulseaudio -systemtap -zero" [nomerge       ]
> > dev-java/ant-nodeps-1.8.1 [ebuild  NS    ]   virtual/jre-1.7.0 [1.6.0]
> > 0 kB [ebuild  NS    ]    virtual/jdk-1.7.0 [1.6.0] 0 kB [ebuild  N F
> > ]     dev-java/oracle-jdk-bin-1.7.0  USE="X alsa -derby -doc -examples
> > -jce -nsplugin" 92,746 kB
> > 
> >   [snip]
> >   
> >   The following license changes are necessary to proceed:
> >   #required by virtual/jdk-1.7.0, required by virtual/jre-1.7.0,
> > 
> > required by dev-java/xalan-2.7.1, required by
> > dev-java/icedtea-6.1.10.3, required by @selected, required by @world
> > (argument)
> > 
> >   >=dev-java/oracle-jdk-bin-1.7.0 Oracle-BCLA-JavaSE
> >   
> >   NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting
> >   
> >         EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" in make.conf.
> >   
> >   Use --autounmask-write to write changes to config files (honoring
> > 
> > CONFIG_PROTECT).
> > 
> > So I need the Oracle-BCLA-JavaSE license.  But I don't see where it
> > tells me how to do this.  Previous license requests said something like
> > * go to URL xxx
> > * click on YYY
> > * store it in distfiles/ZZZ
> 
> That is something different, when portage is not able to download
> stuff.
> 
> What you need to do is to tell portage you accept the license by putting
> the >=dev-java/... line into /etc/portage/package.license. Or you could
> add the --autounmask-write switch to your emerge command, and then use
> etc-update/dispatch-conf/cfg-update or whatever you use to update the
> config files.

Ah. This /etc/portage/package.license thing is new to me.
I use ACCEPT_LICENSE in make.conf. 
You know, what's the difference (if any)?

> 	Wonko

Thanks,
Michael

Re: [gentoo-user] License question for jdk

[Alex Schuster]

Michael Schreckenbauer writes:

> On Saturday, 10. September 2011 16:50:30 Alex Schuster wrote:

> > What you need to do is to tell portage you accept the license by
> > putting the >=dev-java/... line into /etc/portage/package.license. Or
> > you could add the --autounmask-write switch to your emerge command,
> > and then use etc-update/dispatch-conf/cfg-update or whatever you use
> > to update the config files.
> 
> Ah. This /etc/portage/package.license thing is new to me.
> I use ACCEPT_LICENSE in make.conf. 
> You know, what's the difference (if any)?

No, I don't there is any. Just like with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS. It's just
cleaner to have this in package.license I think.

The man pages for portage and make.conf have some more information on
this.

	Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] License question for jdk

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

On Saturday, 10. September 2011 17:19:36 Alex Schuster wrote:
> Michael Schreckenbauer writes:
> > On Saturday, 10. September 2011 16:50:30 Alex Schuster wrote:
> > > What you need to do is to tell portage you accept the license by
> > > putting the >=dev-java/... line into /etc/portage/package.license.
> > > Or
> > > you could add the --autounmask-write switch to your emerge command,
> > > and then use etc-update/dispatch-conf/cfg-update or whatever you use
> > > to update the config files.
> > 
> > Ah. This /etc/portage/package.license thing is new to me.
> > I use ACCEPT_LICENSE in make.conf.
> > You know, what's the difference (if any)?
> 
> No, I don't there is any. Just like with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS. It's just
> cleaner to have this in package.license I think.
> 
> The man pages for portage and make.conf have some more information on
> this.

Thanks. The difference is, that package.license is per package.
So one could set ACCEPT_LICENSE in make.conf and override this setting for 
some packages in package.license.
Now I wonder, what the use-cases would be?
Why would one accept a specific license for package A, but not for package B?

> 	Wonko

Regards,
Michael

Re: [gentoo-user] License question for jdk

[Alex Schuster]

Michael Schreckenbauer writes:

> Thanks. The difference is, that package.license is per package.
> So one could set ACCEPT_LICENSE in make.conf and override this setting
> for some packages in package.license.
> Now I wonder, what the use-cases would be?
> Why would one accept a specific license for package A, but not for
> package B?

This probably won't happen. But I like to use the package.license file, so
I can track what were the packages that I accepted licenses for.

	Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] License question for jdk

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 17:34:51 +0200
Michael Schreckenbauer <grimlog@gmx.de> wrote:

> On Saturday, 10. September 2011 17:19:36 Alex Schuster wrote:
> > Michael Schreckenbauer writes:
> > > On Saturday, 10. September 2011 16:50:30 Alex Schuster wrote:
> > > > What you need to do is to tell portage you accept the license by
> > > > putting the >=dev-java/... line
> > > > into /etc/portage/package.license. Or
> > > > you could add the --autounmask-write switch to your emerge
> > > > command, and then use etc-update/dispatch-conf/cfg-update or
> > > > whatever you use to update the config files.
> > > 
> > > Ah. This /etc/portage/package.license thing is new to me.
> > > I use ACCEPT_LICENSE in make.conf.
> > > You know, what's the difference (if any)?
> > 
> > No, I don't there is any. Just like with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS. It's just
> > cleaner to have this in package.license I think.
> > 
> > The man pages for portage and make.conf have some more information
> > on this.
> 
> Thanks. The difference is, that package.license is per package.
> So one could set ACCEPT_LICENSE in make.conf and override this
> setting for some packages in package.license.
> Now I wonder, what the use-cases would be?
> Why would one accept a specific license for package A, but not for
> package B?

I imagine it's more a theoretical and consistency thing rather than
something that has a real need right now. Maybe someone filed a feature
request and Zac figured it was easy to implement as the framework is
already there for the existing package.* stuff.

I could be useful though, I can totally see someone needing to accept
a restrictive license for one package, but not another.
Companies do odd things with licenses, it's quite realistic for a
company to require an agreement of some kind before one may install
certain sources, but this agreement doesn't cover other packages that
have the same license. I can't think of an example right now though. 

Maybe an Adobe EULA for flash would fit the bill - you accept it for
v9 but not for v10 and the user might want to record that fact instead
of just simply masking an ebuild.

 
-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] License question for jdk

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

On Saturday, 10. September 2011 23:15:19 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 17:34:51 +0200
> 
> Michael Schreckenbauer <grimlog@gmx.de> wrote:
> > On Saturday, 10. September 2011 17:19:36 Alex Schuster wrote:
> > > Michael Schreckenbauer writes:
> > > > On Saturday, 10. September 2011 16:50:30 Alex Schuster wrote:
> > > > > What you need to do is to tell portage you accept the
> > > > > license by
> > > > > putting the >=dev-java/... line
> > > > > into /etc/portage/package.license. Or
> > > > > you could add the --autounmask-write switch to your emerge
> > > > > command, and then use etc-update/dispatch-conf/cfg-update or
> > > > > whatever you use to update the config files.
> > > > 
> > > > Ah. This /etc/portage/package.license thing is new to me.
> > > > I use ACCEPT_LICENSE in make.conf.
> > > > You know, what's the difference (if any)?
> > > 
> > > No, I don't there is any. Just like with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS. It's just
> > > cleaner to have this in package.license I think.
> > > 
> > > The man pages for portage and make.conf have some more information
> > > on this.
> > 
> > Thanks. The difference is, that package.license is per package.
> > So one could set ACCEPT_LICENSE in make.conf and override this
> > setting for some packages in package.license.
> > Now I wonder, what the use-cases would be?
> > Why would one accept a specific license for package A, but not for
> > package B?
> 
> I imagine it's more a theoretical and consistency thing rather than
> something that has a real need right now. Maybe someone filed a feature
> request and Zac figured it was easy to implement as the framework is
> already there for the existing package.* stuff.

Sounds reasonable.

> I could be useful though, I can totally see someone needing to accept
> a restrictive license for one package, but not another.
> Companies do odd things with licenses, it's quite realistic for a
> company to require an agreement of some kind before one may install
> certain sources, but this agreement doesn't cover other packages that
> have the same license. I can't think of an example right now though.
> 
> Maybe an Adobe EULA for flash would fit the bill - you accept it for
> v9 but not for v10 and the user might want to record that fact instead
> of just simply masking an ebuild.

As I see it, the masking would still be needed. Otherwise portage will bother 
you with a request to accept the license every time you try an update of world 
:)

Best,
Michael

Re: [gentoo-user] License question for jdk

[Allan Gottlieb]

On Sat, Sep 10 2011, Alex Schuster wrote:

> Allan Gottlieb writes:
>
>> My update world today produced
>> 
>> 
>> So I need the Oracle-BCLA-JavaSE license.  But I don't see where it
>> tells me how to do this.  Previous license requests said something like
>> * go to URL xxx
>> * click on YYY
>> * store it in distfiles/ZZZ
>
> That is something different, when portage is not able to download
> stuff.
>
> What you need to do is to tell portage you accept the license by putting 
> the >=dev-java/... line into /etc/portage/package.license. Or you could
> add the --autounmask-write switch to your emerge command, and then use
> etc-update/dispatch-conf/cfg-update or whatever you use to update the
> config files.

Thank you, alex.  That was exactly what was needed.  *Then* portage was
unable to download it and the three step procedure I mentioned was asked
for and worked perfectly.

Why do I need this sun/oracle jdk when I already have
icedtea installed?  Indeed, the next step in my normal procedure is
to run emerge --depclean --ask, which then wanted to remove the just
installed package.  I will report this "portage loop" in a separate msg.

In any event, thank you again.

allan

Re: [gentoo-user] License question for jdk

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

On Saturday, 10. September 2011 11:13:29 Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> Why do I need this sun/oracle jdk when I already have
> icedtea installed?  Indeed, the next step in my normal procedure is
> to run emerge --depclean --ask, which then wanted to remove the just
> installed package.  I will report this "portage loop" in a separate msg.

You had oracle-jdk installed, so it's upgraded.
It's not needed anymore, because the virtual is satisfied with icedtea. That's 
why it is removed by a depclean.
No "portage loop" here, everything works as intended :)

> In any event, thank you again.
> allan

Hth,
Michael

Re: [gentoo-user] License question for jdk

[Rudmer van Dijk]

Hi,

Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> My update world today produced
>
>    [nomerge       ] dev-java/icedtea-6.1.10.3  USE="hs20 nsplugin nss webstart xrender -cacao -debug -doc -examples -jamvm -javascript -nio2 -pulseaudio -systemtap -zero"
>    [nomerge       ]  dev-java/ant-nodeps-1.8.1
>    [ebuild  NS    ]   virtual/jre-1.7.0 [1.6.0] 0 kB
>    [ebuild  NS    ]    virtual/jdk-1.7.0 [1.6.0] 0 kB
>    [ebuild  N F   ]     dev-java/oracle-jdk-bin-1.7.0  USE="X alsa -derby -doc -examples -jce -nsplugin" 92,746 kB
>
>    [snip]
>
>    The following license changes are necessary to proceed:
>    #required by virtual/jdk-1.7.0, required by virtual/jre-1.7.0, required by dev-java/xalan-2.7.1, required by dev-java/icedtea-6.1.10.3, required by @selected, required by @world (argument)
>    >=dev-java/oracle-jdk-bin-1.7.0 Oracle-BCLA-JavaSE
>
>    NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting
>          EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" in make.conf.
>
>    Use --autounmask-write to write changes to config files (honoring CONFIG_PROTECT).
>
> So I need the Oracle-BCLA-JavaSE license.  But I don't see where it
> tells me how to do this.  Previous license requests said something like

but it does:    Use --autounmask-write to write changes to config files

so you just have to do this:
	`emerge -va dev-java/oracle-jdk-bin --autounmask-write`
followed by
	`etc-update`
and then you can emerge it
	`emerge -va dev-java/oracle-jdk-bin`


or you could just `echo "dev-java/oracle-jdk-bin Oracle-BCLA-JavaSE" >> 
/etc/portage/package.license`


	Rudmer

Re: [gentoo-user] License question for jdk

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

On Saturday, 10. September 2011 10:38:48 Allan Gottlieb wrote:
> My update world today produced
> 
>   [nomerge       ] dev-java/icedtea-6.1.10.3  USE="hs20 nsplugin nss
> webstart xrender -cacao -debug -doc -examples -jamvm -javascript -nio2
> -pulseaudio -systemtap -zero" [nomerge       ]  dev-java/ant-nodeps-1.8.1
>   [ebuild  NS    ]   virtual/jre-1.7.0 [1.6.0] 0 kB
>   [ebuild  NS    ]    virtual/jdk-1.7.0 [1.6.0] 0 kB
>   [ebuild  N F   ]     dev-java/oracle-jdk-bin-1.7.0  USE="X alsa -derby
> -doc -examples -jce -nsplugin" 92,746 kB
> 
>   [snip]
> 
>   The following license changes are necessary to proceed:
>   #required by virtual/jdk-1.7.0, required by virtual/jre-1.7.0, required by
> dev-java/xalan-2.7.1, required by dev-java/icedtea-6.1.10.3, required by
> @selected, required by @world (argument)
>   >=dev-java/oracle-jdk-bin-1.7.0 Oracle-BCLA-JavaSE
> 
>   NOTE: This --autounmask behavior can be disabled by setting
>         EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--autounmask=n" in make.conf.
> 
>   Use --autounmask-write to write changes to config files (honoring
> CONFIG_PROTECT).
> 
> So I need the Oracle-BCLA-JavaSE license.  But I don't see where it
> tells me how to do this.  Previous license requests said something like
> * go to URL xxx
> * click on YYY
> * store it in distfiles/ZZZ

There are two different things, you have to do.
First is the license, that you need to accept in order to proceed.
You do this via /etc/make.conf, where you can set
ACCEPT_LICENSE="<licenses you accept>"
eg
ACCEPT_LICENSE="${ACCEPT_LICENSE} Oracle-BCLA-JavaSE"
for this specific license or
ACCEPT_LICENSE="*"
to accept every license you are presented with (that's what I have)

Second things is the fetch-restriction. This pops up, after you accepted the 
license and is is what is familiar to you.
Go to URL, download, move to distfiles.

> (As an aside I had thought idedtea replaced the need for oracle/sun 's
> jdk.  I do have installed sun/oracle 's java-sdk-docs.)

That's true. You can unmerge the sun-jdk and emerge icedtea instead.
In my experience, icedtea did not work for everything. That might have 
changed, but I still use the oracle jdk.

> thanks,
> allan

Hth,
Michael

Re: [gentoo-user] License question for jdk

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:59:20 +0200
Michael Schreckenbauer <grimlog@gmx.de> wrote:

> > (As an aside I had thought idedtea replaced the need for oracle/sun
> > 's jdk.  I do have installed sun/oracle 's java-sdk-docs.)  
> 
> That's true. You can unmerge the sun-jdk and emerge icedtea instead.
> In my experience, icedtea did not work for everything. That might
> have changed, but I still use the oracle jdk.

That's been my experience too.

The Java platform defines many sub-packages for all sorts of 
APIs. Turns out that some of them are proprietary or restricted in
interesting ways. Sometimes it's not even the entire package, just a
part of it.

The upshot is that OpenJDK does not contain the is code and every now
and then you try run something with OpenJDK that's in one of these
packages.

Supremely annoying. The last case we had is a Java app that prints to
pdf files. This function only works in sun-jdk due to some svg-to-pdf
converter 

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com