5

I want to use the Java Advanced Imaging library jars in a close-source commercial application. In Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Advanced_Imaging) it says the license is "Java Research License" and so the library cannot be used in commercial applications.

But in the txt files that go with the jars (see here: http://download.java.net/media/jai/builds/release/1_1_3/) "Java Research License" is not mentioned. Nor any other known to me license.

My question is: What is the JAI's license ? Can the JAI library be used in a commercial close-sourced application?

geo
  • 517
  • 1
  • 9
  • 28

1 Answers1

3

What is the JAI's license ?

The JAI license is in the LICENSE-jai.txt file.

Can the JAI library be used in a commercial close-sourced application?

The license says:

"1. LICENSE TO USE. Sun grants you a non-exclusive and non-transferable license for the internal use only of the accompanying software and documentation and any error corrections provided by Sun (collectively "Software"), by the number of users and the class of computer hardware for which the corresponding fee has been paid."

Assuming that your "commercial" application is going to be used for something other than "internal use only" ... as intended by the license, then the answer is No.

Disclaimer: IANAL. If you need professional legal advice, ask a lawyer. If you intend to ignore the clear intent of the JAI license, you need professional legal advice. Alternatively contact Oracle to discuss alternative licensing arrangements.

UPDATE

The LICENSE.TXT in the source code repository for the "jai-core" sub-project says this:

This software is licensed by Sun:

i) for research use under terms of the Java Research License (JRL) as
specified in the LICENSE-JRL.txt file and on the web at
"http://jai.dev.java.net/jrl.html"; or

ii) for commercial use under the terms of the Java Distribution License
(JDL) as specified in the LICENSE-JDL.txt file and on the web at
"http://jai.dev.java.net/jdl-jai.pdf".

The links are incorrect, but you can find the linked documents in the source repo; e.g.

https://java.net/projects/jai/sources/svn/content/trunk/www/jdl-jai.pdf?rev=1433

To view these files, you will need to create a "java.net" account.

I'll leave you (and your lawyer!) to read them, and figure out what it all means. You should NEVER rely on the "expertise" of random people on the internet to interpret legal things for you.

Stephen C
  • 698,415
  • 94
  • 811
  • 1,216
  • It's because I don't understand the " for the internal use only" I asked the question. Also that "the corresponding fee has been paid" is confusing. What does it mean since JAI is free to download and I didn't find anywhere a "buy option". Anyway, thanks. I think I will have to contact Oracle. – geo Apr 19 '14 at 06:34
  • I know I don't have to rely on random people. I was hoping there was a simple answer that for some reason I just didn't see. – geo Apr 19 '14 at 06:43
  • @geo - Even asking that question is relying on random people. How would *we* know if it is a simple question or if there is a simple (correct) answer??? – Stephen C Apr 19 '14 at 06:45
  • I mean that the subject could have been discussed somewhere before ore there could be a good article for it. In that case there could be material to help me. In the way one can find a lot of information on the right way to use LGPL for example on a commercial application. – geo Apr 19 '14 at 06:53
  • @geo - That's different. If you read the stuff on the LGPL on the GNU site, you are reading the opinions of the authors of the license (supported by their lawyers). That's not "random people". OTOH, if you read about it on Joe Bloggs' blog, then his opinion on what the LGPL means is potentially suspect, especially if it contradicts what you read on the GNU site, – Stephen C Apr 19 '14 at 07:55
  • Whenever its Legal we always told to pay for an experts advice, yet for other help such as bug fixing we are happy to accept advice on a forum. My 'expert' solicitor made some quite basic mistakes on my house purchase so I dont think paying will neccessarily get you the best answer, and it strikes me that the approach of always paying for legal advice is a great way to keep the charges of the legal profession outrageously high – Paul Taylor Dec 16 '17 at 10:35
  • 1
    The difference is that you can fix bugs in your code. But if you make a mistake in your interpretation of copyright law, you could end up losing a lot of money. Or worse. – Stephen C Dec 16 '17 at 14:25