> >> >> But even if you modified it, you wouldn't be able to use it. The
> >> >> license explictly prohibits "Internal Deployment", which I read to mean
> > Where exactly does it say so?
> Section II. Purpose, says
> Original Contributor is licensing the Reference Code and
> Technology Specifications under and subject to this Sun
> Solaris Source Code (Foundation Release) License (the
> License) to promote research, education, innovation and
> prototyping using the Technology.
> INTERNAL DEPLOYMENT, COMMERCIAL USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF
> TECHNOLOGY AND/OR REFERENCE CODE IN SOURCE CODE OR OBJECT
> CODE FORM IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT.
Hmm, it says "INTERNAL DEPLOYMENT... OF TECHNOLOGY AND/OR REFERENCE
CODE... IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT".
It says "Reference Code" (the source code from original contributor
(sun micro?)), not "Licensee Code" (Reference Code, Contributed Code or
combinations thereof) or "Contributed Code" or "Covered Code" (what
exactly is that?) or "derivative works" of the reference code, ...
If I fix a bug, recompile and install the fixed binary, is this
deployment of the reference code or perhaps deployment of a
"derivative work" of the reference code (or if I choose to share my
fix with sun, a deployment of "contributed code"/"licensee code") ?
On the other hand, even the internal deployment of the "technology"
(``the technology described in and contemplated by the technology
specifications'') is not permittet and "technology" could be almost
Another strange thing about the licence is, that serveral aspects (for
example: "Covered Code") are defined in terms of the "technology
specifications" (``the documentation ... at the technology site''),
and you get access to that documention only after agreeing to the