I am a new student of Oracle DB. I want to know, if there are some running oracle servers which we can use for study puropse, to understand oracle and SQL queries?
sachin...@gmail.com wrote in news:1185119330.674797.302820 @z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> Hello all,
> I am a new student of Oracle DB. I want to know, if there are some > running oracle servers which we can use for study puropse, to > understand oracle and SQL queries?
> I am a new student of Oracle DB. I want to know, if there are some > running oracle servers which we can use for study puropse, to > understand oracle and SQL queries?
> if this is possible, please let me know
you could download your own (after a free registration) at
> I am a new student of Oracle DB. I want to know, if there are some > running oracle servers which we can use for study puropse, to > understand oracle and SQL queries?
On Jul 22, 5:43 pm, "Ana C. Dent" <anaced...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> sachin...@gmail.com wrote in news:1185119330.674797.302820 > @z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> > Hello all,
> > I am a new student of Oracle DB. I want to know, if there are some > > running oracle servers which we can use for study puropse, to > > understand oracle and SQL queries?
Not strictly true, the only db product that you can legally download for this purpose is in fact the XE product (with the single process/ 4gb ram etc restriction). The rest are licensed only for prototype development - see my blog at http://www.orawin.info/services/node/37 and indeed the license.
I personally think this is unfortunate, but there you go.
> On Jul 22, 5:43 pm, "Ana C. Dent" <anaced...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > sachin...@gmail.com wrote in news:1185119330.674797.302820 > > @z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> > > Hello all,
> > > I am a new student of Oracle DB. I want to know, if there are some > > > running oracle servers which we can use for study puropse, to > > > understand oracle and SQL queries?
> Not strictly true, the only db product that you can legally download > for this purpose is in fact the XE product (with the single process/ > 4gb ram etc restriction). The rest are licensed only for prototype > development - see my blog athttp://www.orawin.info/services/node/37 > and indeed the license.
> I personally think this is unfortunate, but there you go.
hjr.pyth...@gmail.com wrote: > On Jul 23, 6:19 am, Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfi...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Jul 22, 5:43 pm, "Ana C. Dent" <anaced...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> sachin...@gmail.com wrote in news:1185119330.674797.302820 >>> @z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com: >>>> Hello all, >>>> I am a new student of Oracle DB. I want to know, if there are some >>>> running oracle servers which we can use for study puropse, to >>>> understand oracle and SQL queries? >>>> if this is possible, please let me know >>> http://otn.oracle.com >>> You can download & install on any system you desire. >> Not strictly true, the only db product that you can legally download >> for this purpose is in fact the XE product (with the single process/ >> 4gb ram etc restriction). The rest are licensed only for prototype >> development - see my blog athttp://www.orawin.info/services/node/37 >> and indeed the license.
>> I personally think this is unfortunate, but there you go.
> The license prohibits commercial exploitation of the free software; it > does not mandate its use only in the production of prototypes.
> For home learning (self-study) purposes, nothing in the license > prohibits the use of the Enterprise/Standard Edition downloads > available from OTN.
My understanding from Oracle sales matches Howard's. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org
> hjr.pyth...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Jul 23, 6:19 am, Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfi...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> On Jul 22, 5:43 pm, "Ana C. Dent" <anaced...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> sachin...@gmail.com wrote in news:1185119330.674797.302820 > >>> @z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com: > >>>> Hello all, > >>>> I am a new student of Oracle DB. I want to know, if there are some > >>>> running oracle servers which we can use for study puropse, to > >>>> understand oracle and SQL queries? > >>>> if this is possible, please let me know > >>>http://otn.oracle.com > >>> You can download & install on any system you desire. > >> Not strictly true, the only db product that you can legally download > >> for this purpose is in fact the XE product (with the singls this, e process/ > >> 4gb ram etc restriction). The rest are licensed only for prototype > >> development - see my blog athttp://www.orawin.info/services/node/37 > >> and indeed the license.
> >> I personally think this is unfortunate, but there you go.
> > The license prohibits commercial exploitation of the free software; it > > does not mandate its use only in the production of prototypes.
> > For home learning (self-study) purposes, nothing in the license > > prohibits the use of the Enterprise/Standard Edition downloads > > available from OTN.
> My understanding from Oracle sales matches Howard's.
Oracle software is [apparently] free - just sign up to OTN and down load.. Since it is owned by Oracle, one needs a license for the right to use the software. Oracle has several licenses, including several different ones they use on the download section of OTN.
_My interpretation_ of the Oracle Technology Network Developer License (used with the database EE) is: Oracle seems to have the intention to make the software available for evaluation of fit for a specific business purpose. If that evaluation results in a positive bottom line impact, either through revenue generation or cost savings, then Oracle wants it's "fatir" share of that impact. (Determining the fair share is an exercise left for the negotiators.) However, learning how to use the software correctly is a specific form of evaluation.
Based on several discussions with local Oracle Sales reps, my understanding of Oracle's intent also matches yours and Howard's for all practical purposes.
However, I note that the license has a complete section on the rights. That has 3 major parts:
1) What you are permitted to do 2) Who owns the Oracle softwarly 3) Confirmation of what you are permitted to do by giving specific exclusions, presumably as examples.
Part 1 states "We grant you a nonexclusive, nontransferable limited license to use the programs only for the purpose of developing a single prototype of your application, and not for any other purpose." That "not for any other purpose" is pretty explicit.
Howard's blog isolates the exclusions and he specifically locks in to the idea that - paraphrased - seems to indicate "if there is a list of exclusions, and your activity isn't on the list, then it must be an inclusion". If my interpretation of his interpretation is correct ...'T'aint necessarily so!
At least here in Canada, in the strictest sense Niall is correct. However, again based on my discussions as well as precedence (Oracle has knowingly been letting the software be used for private education) - in a court of law, it would depend entirely on whether the judge was interested in "strict interpretation" or "intent interpretation" of contract.
I really do wish that Oracle would adjust that license to make it explicit that the product can [also] be used for purposes of education about Oracle's features and capabilities, provided that such education if specifically for the individual who has downloaded the software.
Then again, I am pretty sure there are one or two improperly licensed copies of the Oracle software that are actually in production. I just need to look at the OTN General Database forum for all those [anonymous] 'Urgent - please help' messages which reply "I don't have Metalink access" when I give Note numbers.
/Hans (legal owner of Oracle Database 10g Release 2 Personal Edition and support contract for training purposes!!! <g>) -- Hans Forbrich (mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com) *** Feel free to correct me when I'm wrong! *** Top posting [replies] guarantees I won't respond.
On Jul 23, 12:15 pm, HansF <fuzzy.greybe...@gmail.com> wrote: [...]
> However, I note that the license has a complete section on the > rights. That has 3 major parts:
> 1) What you are permitted to do > 2) Who owns the Oracle softwarly > 3) Confirmation of what you are permitted to do by giving specific > exclusions, presumably as examples. > Part 1 states "We grant you a nonexclusive, nontransferable limited > license to use the programs only for the purpose of developing a > single prototype of your application, and not for any other purpose." > That "not for any other purpose" is pretty explicit.
Well, as I said earlier and elsewhere, it's only pretty explicit if you leave off the next sentence, where they clarify that it is the commercial or production use of any application so prototyped that is the issue. The inclusion of that second sentence actually seems to be contradictory to the first, in fact, because it implicitly allows other uses that the first sentence seeks to deny. That's bad drafting and leaves the matter of 'explicit prohibition' up in the air.
There's also the point that learning how the Oracle RDBMS works is a valid part of a prototyping exercise: you can't write code if you don't know how the engine that is going to run that code behaves. If I spend six months using the download to learn how to do backup & recovery, data guard and RAC... sounds like a reasonable part of 'developing an application' to me. Arguably so, at any rate. There is certainly no time limit placed on the prototyping exercise, nor any requirement for a finished prototype to be furnished in evidence of compliance with the license terms.
> Howard's blog isolates the exclusions and he specifically locks in to > the idea that - paraphrased - seems to indicate "if there is a list of > exclusions, and your activity isn't on the list, then it must be an > inclusion". If my interpretation of his interpretation is > correct ...'T'aint necessarily so!
The license doesn't say 'what follows are merely examples of what you are not permitted to do'. It says simply 'you may not do X, Y and Z'. Normally, there would be rubric along the lines of 'for example, but not limited to,...' when one means a list to be exemplary rather than explicit. The lack of such rubric means the list can be taken as a list of specifics -and if you don't specifically and explicitly prohibit something **in that context**, you do implicitly allow it.
It's not **necessarily** so, of course. But it is so in the specific context of the legal language that is used -and the language that is not used- in that specific license.
> At least here in Canada, in the strictest sense Niall is correct. > However, again based on my discussions as well as precedence (Oracle > has knowingly been letting the software be used for private > education) - in a court of law, it would depend entirely on whether > the judge was interested in "strict interpretation" or "intent > interpretation" of contract.
I rather think the learned judge would regard parts 1 and 3 of the license as, on the face of it, contradictory. And then I think he would read Part 1 as being internally contradictory -with an apparently 'explicit' prohibition muddied by its second sentence. Add a Part 3 which he would read as permissive, and I think he would conclude that the license actually only does what we all seem agreed that Oracle intended to do in the first place: crack down on commercial exploitation of their giveaway.
At the very least, I think that possible line of argument means that neither in Canada or anywhere else is Niall necessarily "correct". He has offered one interpretation of a poorly-written license as though it were established legal fact (and scared the bejezus out of potentital newbies in the process, it seemed to me, which is why I felt compelled to disagree with his interpretation in the first place!)
> I really do wish that Oracle would adjust that license to make it > explicit that the product can [also] be used for purposes of education > about Oracle's features and capabilities, provided that such education > if specifically for the individual who has downloaded the software.
I agree, 100% -because I would swear that the license we currently have is practically unenforceable, contradicting itself in the space of few sentences and being opaque when clarity is needed. There should indeed be a very clear, very permissive educational license that permits unlimited time for a single user to perform any investigation of the product's performance and behaviour necessary to better understand the product.
> > However, I note that the license has a complete section on the > > rights. That has 3 major parts:
> > 1) What you are permitted to do > > 2) Who owns the Oracle softwarly > > 3) Confirmation of what you are permitted to do by giving specific > > exclusions, presumably as examples. > > Part 1 states "We grant you a nonexclusive, nontransferable limited > > license to use the programs only for the purpose of developing a > > single prototype of your application, and not for any other purpose." > > That "not for any other purpose" is pretty explicit.
> Well, as I said earlier and elsewhere, it's only pretty explicit if > you leave off the next sentence, where they clarify that it is the > commercial or production use of any application so prototyped that is > the issue. The inclusion of that second sentence actually seems to be > contradictory to the first, in fact, because it implicitly allows > other uses that the first sentence seeks to deny. That's bad drafting > and leaves the matter of 'explicit prohibition' up in the air.
I disagree. The exact wording is
"If you use the application you develop under this license for any internal data processing or for any commercial or production purposes, or you want to use the programs for any purpose other than as permitted under this agreement, you must contact us, or an Oracle reseller, to obtain the appropriate license. ..."
That second sentence does not stop at commercial or production. I read 'internal' use [no limits on what kind either], 'commercial or production use', or 'any other purpose' [for example, paper weight] 'other than stated' - which was, in the previous sentence, stated as for prototyping' . Pretty inclusive AND pretty explicit, in my mind.
Still, it ain't up to me - IANAL. I'm sure it's a lawyer's dream come true: loose enough to allow for interpretation and mis-interpretation, allowing for both generosity as well as lengthy, scary, court cases if desired.
Leaving the last rebuttal to you. <g> -- Hans Forbrich (mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com) *** Feel free to correct me when I'm wrong! *** Top posting [replies] guarantees I won't respond.
> > > However, I note that the license has a complete section on the > > > rights. That has 3 major parts:
> > > 1) What you are permitted to do > > > 2) Who owns the Oracle softwarly > > > 3) Confirmation of what you are permitted to do by giving specific > > > exclusions, presumably as examples. > > > Part 1 states "We grant you a nonexclusive, nontransferable limited > > > license to use the programs only for the purpose of developing a > > > single prototype of your application, and not for any other purpose." > > > That "not for any other purpose" is pretty explicit.
> > Well, as I said earlier and elsewhere, it's only pretty explicit if > > you leave off the next sentence, where they clarify that it is the > > commercial or production use of any application so prototyped that is > > the issue. The inclusion of that second sentence actually seems to be > > contradictory to the first, in fact, because it implicitly allows > > other uses that the first sentence seeks to deny. That's bad drafting > > and leaves the matter of 'explicit prohibition' up in the air.
> I disagree. The exact wording is
> "If you use the application you develop under this license for any > internal data processing or for any commercial or production purposes, > or you want to use the programs for any purpose other than as > permitted under this agreement, you must contact us, or an Oracle > reseller, to obtain the appropriate license. ..."
On re-read, it's even clearer. That second sentence talks about two things:
1) The app that you prototyped - if it is to be used in any internal/ commercial/production way, you need to contact Oracle; 2) The database software provided by Oracle - if it is to be used for anything other than the permitted purpose (prototyping), you need to contact Oracle
The only thing that we can hope for is that which both you (Howard and Daniel) and I have already agreed on in various posts ... learning how to use the program (for example, by entering SQL commands) is a specific and acceptable form of prototyping. And the resulting application will never be deployed internally, commercially or in any form of production.
-- Hans Forbrich (mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com) *** Feel free to correct me when I'm wrong! *** Top posting [replies] guarantees I won't respond.
> > > > However, I note that the license has a complete section on the > > > > rights. That has 3 major parts:
> > > > 1) What you are permitted to do > > > > 2) Who owns the Oracle softwarly > > > > 3) Confirmation of what you are permitted to do by giving specific > > > > exclusions, presumably as examples. > > > > Part 1 states "We grant you a nonexclusive, nontransferable limited > > > > license to use the programs only for the purpose of developing a > > > > single prototype of your application, and not for any other purpose." > > > > That "not for any other purpose" is pretty explicit.
> > > Well, as I said earlier and elsewhere, it's only pretty explicit if > > > you leave off the next sentence, where they clarify that it is the > > > commercial or production use of any application so prototyped that is > > > the issue. The inclusion of that second sentence actually seems to be > > > contradictory to the first, in fact, because it implicitly allows > > > other uses that the first sentence seeks to deny. That's bad drafting > > > and leaves the matter of 'explicit prohibition' up in the air.
> > I disagree. The exact wording is
> > "If you use the application you develop under this license for any > > internal data processing or for any commercial or production purposes, > > or you want to use the programs for any purpose other than as > > permitted under this agreement, you must contact us, or an Oracle > > reseller, to obtain the appropriate license. ..."
> On re-read, it's even clearer. That second sentence talks about two > things:
> 1) The app that you prototyped - if it is to be used in any internal/ > commercial/production way, you need to contact Oracle; > 2) The database software provided by Oracle - if it is to be used for > anything other than the permitted purpose (prototyping), you need to > contact Oracle
> The only thing that we can hope for is that which both you (Howard and > Daniel) and I have already agreed on in various posts ... learning how > to use the program (for example, by entering SQL commands) is a > specific and acceptable form of prototyping. And the resulting > application will never be deployed internally, commercially or in any > form of production.
> -- > Hans Forbrich (mailto: Fuzzy.GreyBeard_at_gmail.com) > *** Feel free to correct me when I'm wrong! > *** Top posting [replies] guarantees I won't respond.
If you exclude all use except A, there is no need to point out that B and C are not allowed. Once you state that B and C are not allowed, on the other hand, you are stating that A is not all-encompassing.
Put another way: you only clarify when clarification is needed. That the Corporation sought to clarify a 'thou shalt only use this product to do A' statement tells us (me, at least) that their first sentence is not proscriptive of all uses except A.
Besides which, there's more to it than the reading of two sentences. You have to read the entire license, not two sentences. And the list of 'you may nots' included in part 3 of the license is further evidence that the license **as a whole** is not proscriptive of non- prototyping use, whatever one or two sentences may purport. And there remains the fact that I think we're agreed on: no definition of 'prototyping' is offered, so pretty much anything bar commercial use of the software could be construed as being allowed.
I have two barristers who'll back that three-part interpretation (because they gave it to me first!).
But really, that's neither here nor there, since the only place such arguments carry real meaning is a courtroom. What I *don't* want left on the record is statements of 'but of course, you aren't licensed to learn with EE'. Or 'Clearly, using the software is not legal'. There's no 'of course' about it and 'clearly' there's room for considerable legal argument, at least.
The only thing that is clear to me, therefore, is that no-one is breaching any term of the license in downloading the software and using it for non-commercial, solo home learning purposes... or that, if they are in breach of the license, it's not clear-cut and obvious that they are. In those circumstances, absent the Corporation proving the point with a test case, there's really nothing to get worried about. Suggestions to the contrary remind me a lot of Microsoft's claim that Linux infringes numerous unspecified patents: worrying, frightening, causing concern... but fundamentally, mere FUD until the company proves otherwise.
> If you exclude all use except A, there is no need to point out that B > and C are not allowed. Once you state that B and C are not allowed, on > the other hand, you are stating that A is not all-encompassing.
I think, and I'm only married to a lawyer and she doesn't practice in california which is the relevant jurisdiction, that that's an argument rather than a rule/custom in law.
> Put another way: you only clarify when clarification is needed. That > the Corporation sought to clarify a 'thou shalt only use this product > to do A' statement tells us (me, at least) that their first sentence > is not proscriptive of all uses except A.
lawyers only clarify when clarification is needed? That must be the reason for all those email disclaimers then - clearly written because clarification is needed.
> Besides which, there's more to it than the reading of two sentences. > You have to read the entire license, not two sentences. And the list > of 'you may nots' included in part 3 of the license is further > evidence that the license **as a whole** is not proscriptive of non- > prototyping use, whatever one or two sentences may purport. And there > remains the fact that I think we're agreed on: no definition of > 'prototyping' is offered, so pretty much anything bar commercial use > of the software could be construed as being allowed.
But the only part of the license that you seem to be offering is the one line about third party training. There doesn't appear to be any other segment of the license that mentions learning/home use at all.
> I have two barristers who'll back that three-part interpretation > (because they gave it to me first!).
> But really, that's neither here nor there, since the only place such > arguments carry real meaning is a courtroom. What I *don't* want left > on the record is statements of 'but of course, you aren't licensed to > learn with EE'. Or 'Clearly, using the software is not legal'. There's > no 'of course' about it and 'clearly' there's room for considerable > legal argument, at least.
My take is that there is usually room for legal argument about nearly everything, unfortunately. I am not as convinced as you - though I don't have the barrister's opinions on my side either - that basing a case that because a similar activity is specifically excluded and my activity isn't excluded I'm OK is the stringest one to be making against a license that mutliple times gives only one permitted usage and excludes all others.
> The only thing that is clear to me, therefore, is that no-one is > breaching any term of the license in downloading the software and > using it for non-commercial, solo home learning purposes... or that, > if they are in breach of the license, it's not clear-cut and obvious > that they are. In those circumstances, absent the Corporation proving > the point with a test case, there's really nothing to get worried > about. Suggestions to the contrary remind me a lot of Microsoft's > claim that Linux infringes numerous unspecified patents: worrying, > frightening, causing concern... but fundamentally, mere FUD until the > company proves otherwise.
As I did say in my blog, such was also my understanding - I was prompted to go and re-read the license in another context - namely the development part of the discussion, but not withstanding this the non- commercial part of the license that I thought was there just isn't. If suggesting that people read the license of software they download to make sure that they can use it as they assume they can is FUD then I'm probably guilty as charged.
I also note that the license was amended in Sept 2005 (some years after I last read it) just before the release of Oracle XE. That product is most definitely and without any FUD free for home (and indeed commercial use). I believe that you and I have similar views about it's suitability for learning the dba role, but it's definitely free to use without any restrictions on purpose (there are hardware restrictions for those unfamiliar with the product).
And yes if Oracle were to amend the license to specifically allow private study purposes I'd very much welcome it. Equally if they were to post here, or preferably on an Oracle owned site a similar clarification that showed I was wrong that would be fine. As I said in my blog though in the end you'll need to read the relevant licenses yourself and come to your own conclusions about what is permissible - it should go without saying that anything I (or Howard and his lawyers or anyone else on the thread) say here is opinion only.
On Jul 23, 7:13 pm, Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 23, 6:53 am, hjr.pyth...@gmail.com wrote:
> > If you exclude all use except A, there is no need to point out that B > > and C are not allowed. Once you state that B and C are not allowed, on > > the other hand, you are stating that A is not all-encompassing.
> I think, and I'm only married to a lawyer and she doesn't practice in > california which is the relevant jurisdiction, that that's an argument > rather than a rule/custom in law.
Indeed it's an argument. Which is what lawyers are good at.
> > Put another way: you only clarify when clarification is needed. That > > the Corporation sought to clarify a 'thou shalt only use this product > > to do A' statement tells us (me, at least) that their first sentence > > is not proscriptive of all uses except A.
> lawyers only clarify when clarification is needed? That must be the > reason for all those email disclaimers then - clearly written because > clarification is needed.
Lawyers, even your wife, will call that a non sequiteur. A disclaimer disclaims. And hopefully in clear and concise language, because the less clear and less concise it is, the more wiggle room there is for your opponents to make a case.
> > Besides which, there's more to it than the reading of two sentences. > > You have to read the entire license, not two sentences. And the list > > of 'you may nots' included in part 3 of the license is further > > evidence that the license **as a whole** is not proscriptive of non- > > prototyping use, whatever one or two sentences may purport. And there > > remains the fact that I think we're agreed on: no definition of > > 'prototyping' is offered, so pretty much anything bar commercial use > > of the software could be construed as being allowed.
> But the only part of the license that you seem to be offering is the > one line about third party training. There doesn't appear to be any > other segment of the license that mentions learning/home use at all.
Then you haven't been reading what I've read.
Part 1 (using the references mentioned above by Hans) contains two sentences which contain within them an unnecessary clarification that seems to negate the flat prohibition of everything bar prototyping that sentence one seems to assert.
Parts 1 and 3 contradict each other, because the list of 'may nots' does not claim to be 'for example, but not limited to'
And there is no definition of 'prototyping' that precludes the use of the software for solo home learning purposes, whereas reasonable people might well suggest that if you're going to prototype an application for RAC, for example, you will first need to learn what RAC is, how to install it, how to configure it and so on.
That's three arguments against the proposition you started with, not one, and I've made all three of them repeatedly.
There is in fact a fourth, which is that the license explicitly seeks to prohibit commercial use of the software in a third-party training environment; it explicitly prohibits the commercial use of the software in a development environment; and it explicitly prohibits the use of the software in a commercial database management/internal data processing environment. That's commercial trainers, developers and DBAs dealt with, and establishes a pattern of what the license seeks to prohibit, namely commercial exploitation of the software by anyone. Home learning use does not fall within these explicit and clear targets of the license (and my third point above rather suggests that it positively falls within the explicitly included uses).
> > I have two barristers who'll back that three-part interpretation > > (because they gave it to me first!).
> > But really, that's neither here nor there, since the only place such > > arguments carry real meaning is a courtroom. What I *don't* want left > > on the record is statements of 'but of course, you aren't licensed to > > learn with EE'. Or 'Clearly, using the software is not legal'. There's > > no 'of course' about it and 'clearly' there's room for considerable > > legal argument, at least.
> My take is that there is usually room for legal argument about nearly > everything, unfortunately. I am not as convinced as you - though I > don't have the barrister's opinions on my side either - that basing a > case that because a similar activity is specifically excluded and my > activity isn't excluded I'm OK is the stringest one to be making > against a license that mutliple times gives only one permitted usage > and excludes all others.
You are again only working on one of the points I've made. The whole thrust of my blog piece and the posts I've made here is: the license has to be taken as an entire document, not one or two points out of context. And as a whole, the document lists a number of things you may not do, but does not say 'these are examples only, and what is not permitted is not limited to this list'. It's a fairly standard bit of legalese that is easy enough to drop into any agreement, after all: "You may not use the software to, for example but not limited to, (a) blah blah blah..." That they chose not to include such a get-out clause is instructive.
> > The only thing that is clear to me, therefore, is that no-one is > > breaching any term of the license in downloading the software and > > using it for non-commercial, solo home learning purposes... or that, > > if they are in breach of the license, it's not clear-cut and obvious > > that they are. In those circumstances, absent the Corporation proving > > the point with a test case, there's really nothing to get worried > > about. Suggestions to the contrary remind me a lot of Microsoft's > > claim that Linux infringes numerous unspecified patents: worrying, > > frightening, causing concern... but fundamentally, mere FUD until the > > company proves otherwise.
> As I did say in my blog, such was also my understanding - I was > prompted to go and re-read the license in another context - namely the > development part of the discussion, but not withstanding this the non- > commercial part of the license that I thought was there just isn't. If > suggesting that people read the license of software they download to > make sure that they can use it as they assume they can is FUD then I'm > probably guilty as charged.
> I also note that the license was amended in Sept 2005 (some years > after I last read it) just before the release of Oracle XE. That > product is most definitely and without any FUD free for home (and > indeed commercial use). I believe that you and I have similar views > about it's suitability for learning the dba role, but it's definitely > free to use without any restrictions on purpose (there are hardware > restrictions for those unfamiliar with the product).
And it's useless for learning Data Guard, RAC, ASM etc etc etc.
Learning of which, as I say, would be (could be, I suppose) a prerequisite for developing a prototype for it.
> And yes if Oracle were to amend the license to specifically allow > private study purposes I'd very much welcome it. Equally if they were > to post here, or preferably on an Oracle owned site a similar > clarification that showed I was wrong that would be fine. As I said in > my blog though in the end you'll need to read the relevant licenses > yourself and come to your own conclusions about what is permissible - > it should go without saying that anything I (or Howard and his lawyers > or anyone else on the thread) say here is opinion only.
And that's fine: 'opinion only'. If your original piece had said, 'there's an argument to be made...', fair enough. It doesn't though. It says, "[the claim that] you can download the software and learn for free is in fact not true". A bald statement of purported fact... when it's not fact at all, but your opinion (and one you're entitled to hold, naturally enough).
My rebuttal piece ends, "I say that's a misreading of the license and ignores context and clues contained elsewhere in the license that, read all together, make it clear home learning is a perfectly proper and legitimate use of the software." ...and the 'I say' at the start of that makes a bit of a difference, I'd suggest.
We are agreed, I think, that the license is an unholy mess and it needs to be clarified. We should be careful what we wish for, though: I would hate a license that allowed anything at all for XE, crippled as it is for would-be DBAs, and banned pretty much anything for the 'proper' software. But I suspect that's what we might inherit...
>>> If you exclude all use except A, there is no need to point out that B >>> and C are not allowed. Once you state that B and C are not allowed, on >>> the other hand, you are stating that A is not all-encompassing. >> I think, and I'm only married to a lawyer and she doesn't practice in >> california which is the relevant jurisdiction, that that's an argument >> rather than a rule/custom in law.
> Indeed it's an argument. Which is what lawyers are good at.
>>> Put another way: you only clarify when clarification is needed. That >>> the Corporation sought to clarify a 'thou shalt only use this product >>> to do A' statement tells us (me, at least) that their first sentence >>> is not proscriptive of all uses except A. >> lawyers only clarify when clarification is needed? That must be the >> reason for all those email disclaimers then - clearly written because >> clarification is needed.
> Lawyers, even your wife, will call that a non sequiteur. A disclaimer > disclaims. And hopefully in clear and concise language, because the > less clear and less concise it is, the more wiggle room there is for > your opponents to make a case.
>>> Besides which, there's more to it than the reading of two sentences. >>> You have to read the entire license, not two sentences. And the list >>> of 'you may nots' included in part 3 of the license is further >>> evidence that the license **as a whole** is not proscriptive of non- >>> prototyping use, whatever one or two sentences may purport. And there >>> remains the fact that I think we're agreed on: no definition of >>> 'prototyping' is offered, so pretty much anything bar commercial use >>> of the software could be construed as being allowed. >> But the only part of the license that you seem to be offering is the >> one line about third party training. There doesn't appear to be any >> other segment of the license that mentions learning/home use at all.
> Then you haven't been reading what I've read.
> Part 1 (using the references mentioned above by Hans) contains two > sentences which contain within them an unnecessary clarification that > seems to negate the flat prohibition of everything bar prototyping > that sentence one seems to assert.
> Parts 1 and 3 contradict each other, because the list of 'may nots' > does not claim to be 'for example, but not limited to'
> And there is no definition of 'prototyping' that precludes the use of > the software for solo home learning purposes, whereas reasonable > people might well suggest that if you're going to prototype an > application for RAC, for example, you will first need to learn what > RAC is, how to install it, how to configure it and so on.
> That's three arguments against the proposition you started with, not > one, and I've made all three of them repeatedly.
> There is in fact a fourth, which is that the license explicitly seeks > to prohibit commercial use of the software in a third-party training > environment; it explicitly prohibits the commercial use of the > software in a development environment; and it explicitly prohibits the > use of the software in a commercial database management/internal data > processing environment. That's commercial trainers, developers and > DBAs dealt with, and establishes a pattern of what the license seeks > to prohibit, namely commercial exploitation of the software by anyone. > Home learning use does not fall within these explicit and clear > targets of the license (and my third point above rather suggests that > it positively falls within the explicitly included uses).
>>> I have two barristers who'll back that three-part interpretation >>> (because they gave it to me first!). >>> But really, that's neither here nor there, since the only place such >>> arguments carry real meaning is a courtroom. What I *don't* want left >>> on the record is statements of 'but of course, you aren't licensed to >>> learn with EE'. Or 'Clearly, using the software is not legal'. There's >>> no 'of course' about it and 'clearly' there's room for considerable >>> legal argument, at least. >> My take is that there is usually room for legal argument about nearly >> everything, unfortunately. I am not as convinced as you - though I >> don't have the barrister's opinions on my side either - that basing a >> case that because a similar activity is specifically excluded and my >> activity isn't excluded I'm OK is the stringest one to be making >> against a license that mutliple times gives only one permitted usage >> and excludes all others.
> You are again only working on one of the points I've made. The whole > thrust of my blog piece and the posts I've made here is: the license > has to be taken as an entire document, not one or two points out of > context. And as a whole, the document lists a number of things you may > not do, but does not say 'these are examples only, and what is not > permitted is not limited to this list'. It's a fairly standard bit of > legalese that is easy enough to drop into any agreement, after all: > "You may not use the software to, for example but not limited to, (a) > blah blah blah..." That they chose not to include such a get-out > clause is instructive.
>>> The only thing that is clear to me, therefore, is that no-one is >>> breaching any term of the license in downloading the software and >>> using it for non-commercial, solo home learning purposes... or that, >>> if they are in breach of the license, it's not clear-cut and obvious >>> that they are. In those circumstances, absent the Corporation proving >>> the point with a test case, there's really nothing to get worried >>> about. Suggestions to the contrary remind me a lot of Microsoft's >>> claim that Linux infringes numerous unspecified patents: worrying, >>> frightening, causing concern... but fundamentally, mere FUD until the >>> company proves otherwise. >> As I did say in my blog, such was also my understanding - I was >> prompted to go and re-read the license in another context - namely the >> development part of the discussion, but not withstanding this the non- >> commercial part of the license that I thought was there just isn't. If >> suggesting that people read the license of software they download to >> make sure that they can use it as they assume they can is FUD then I'm >> probably guilty as charged.
>> I also note that the license was amended in Sept 2005 (some years >> after I last read it) just before the release of Oracle XE. That >> product is most definitely and without any FUD free for home (and >> indeed commercial use). I believe that you and I have similar views >> about it's suitability for learning the dba role, but it's definitely >> free to use without any restrictions on purpose (there are hardware >> restrictions for those unfamiliar with the product).
> And it's useless for learning Data Guard, RAC, ASM etc etc etc.
> Learning of which, as I say, would be (could be, I suppose) a > prerequisite for developing a prototype for it.
>> And yes if Oracle were to amend the license to specifically allow >> private study purposes I'd very much welcome it. Equally if they were >> to post here, or preferably on an Oracle owned site a similar >> clarification that showed I was wrong that would be fine. As I said in >> my blog though in the end you'll need to read the relevant licenses >> yourself and come to your own conclusions about what is permissible - >> it should go without saying that anything I (or Howard and his lawyers >> or anyone else on the thread) say here is opinion only.
> And that's fine: 'opinion only'. If your original piece had said, > 'there's an argument to be made...', fair enough. It doesn't though. > It says, "[the claim that] you can download the software and learn for > free is in fact not true". A bald statement of purported fact... when > it's not fact at all, but your opinion (and one you're entitled to > hold, naturally enough).
> My rebuttal piece ends, "I say that's a misreading of the license and > ignores context and clues contained elsewhere in the license that, > read all together, make it clear home learning is a perfectly proper > and legitimate use of the software." ...and the 'I say' at the start > of that makes a bit of a difference, I'd suggest.
> We are agreed, I think, that the license is an unholy mess and it > needs to be clarified. We should be careful what we wish for, though: > I would hate a license that allowed anything at all for XE, crippled > as it is for would-be DBAs, and banned pretty much anything for the > 'proper' software. But I suspect that's what we might inherit...
In a practical sense I suspect the license does precisely what it is intended to do. It gives Oracle the ability to make the software available to a wide variety of individuals and organizations and at the same time yank on the leash if something happens that they view as an abuse.
They can't put it out there with no license and they don't want their legal beagles to tighten down the screws so tightly that we would all feel obligated to get a legal opinion before going to OTN.
Contracts are almost always a compilation of clauses; each one dealing with avoiding a previously identified error in judgment. The way this license reads my presumption would be that Oracle is perfectly happy having a large stick in plain sight and doesn't have to pick it up very often. -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org
On Jul 23, 10:13 am, Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And yes if Oracle were to amend the license to specifically allow > private study purposes I'd very much welcome it. Equally if they were > to post here, or preferably on an Oracle owned site a similar > clarification that showed I was wrong that would be fine.
which is precisely what they have done http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/index.html - can't say clearer than that, and I'll happily go back to recommending people use the otn downloads for self-study - or XE for free deployments.
> > And yes if Oracle were to amend the license to specifically allow > > private study purposes I'd very much welcome it. Equally if they were > > to post here, or preferably on an Oracle owned site a similar > > clarification that showed I was wrong that would be fine.
> which is precisely what they have donehttp://www.oracle.com/technology/software/index.html > - can't say clearer than that, and I'll happily go back to > recommending people use the otn downloads for self-study - or XE for > free deployments.
> >>> If you exclude all use except A, there is no need to point out that B > >>> and C are not allowed. Once you state that B and C are not allowed, on > >>> the other hand, you are stating that A is not all-encompassing. > >> I think, and I'm only married to a lawyer and she doesn't practice in > >> california which is the relevant jurisdiction, that that's an argument > >> rather than a rule/custom in law.
> > Indeed it's an argument. Which is what lawyers are good at.
> >>> Put another way: you only clarify when clarification is needed. That > >>> the Corporation sought to clarify a 'thou shalt only use this product > >>> to do A' statement tells us (me, at least) that their first sentence > >>> is not proscriptive of all uses except A. > >> lawyers only clarify when clarification is needed? That must be the > >> reason for all those email disclaimers then - clearly written because > >> clarification is needed.
> > Lawyers, even your wife, will call that a non sequiteur. A disclaimer > > disclaims. And hopefully in clear and concise language, because the > > less clear and less concise it is, the more wiggle room there is for > > your opponents to make a case.
> >>> Besides which, there's more to it than the reading of two sentences. > >>> You have to read the entire license, not two sentences. And the list > >>> of 'you may nots' included in part 3 of the license is further > >>> evidence that the license **as a whole** is not proscriptive of non- > >>> prototyping use, whatever one or two sentences may purport. And there > >>> remains the fact that I think we're agreed on: no definition of > >>> 'prototyping' is offered, so pretty much anything bar commercial use > >>> of the software could be construed as being allowed. > >> But the only part of the license that you seem to be offering is the > >> one line about third party training. There doesn't appear to be any > >> other segment of the license that mentions learning/home use at all.
> > Then you haven't been reading what I've read.
> > Part 1 (using the references mentioned above by Hans) contains two > > sentences which contain within them an unnecessary clarification that > > seems to negate the flat prohibition of everything bar prototyping > > that sentence one seems to assert.
> > Parts 1 and 3 contradict each other, because the list of 'may nots' > > does not claim to be 'for example, but not limited to'
> > And there is no definition of 'prototyping' that precludes the use of > > the software for solo home learning purposes, whereas reasonable > > people might well suggest that if you're going to prototype an > > application for RAC, for example, you will first need to learn what > > RAC is, how to install it, how to configure it and so on.
> > That's three arguments against the proposition you started with, not > > one, and I've made all three of them repeatedly.
> > There is in fact a fourth, which is that the license explicitly seeks > > to prohibit commercial use of the software in a third-party training > > environment; it explicitly prohibits the commercial use of the > > software in a development environment; and it explicitly prohibits the > > use of the software in a commercial database management/internal data > > processing environment. That's commercial trainers, developers and > > DBAs dealt with, and establishes a pattern of what the license seeks > > to prohibit, namely commercial exploitation of the software by anyone. > > Home learning use does not fall within these explicit and clear > > targets of the license (and my third point above rather suggests that > > it positively falls within the explicitly included uses).
> >>> I have two barristers who'll back that three-part interpretation > >>> (because they gave it to me first!). > >>> But really, that's neither here nor there, since the only place such > >>> arguments carry real meaning is a courtroom. What I *don't* want left > >>> on the record is statements of 'but of course, you aren't licensed to > >>> learn with EE'. Or 'Clearly, using the software is not legal'. There's > >>> no 'of course' about it and 'clearly' there's room for considerable > >>> legal argument, at least. > >> My take is that there is usually room for legal argument about nearly > >> everything, unfortunately. I am not as convinced as you - though I > >> don't have the barrister's opinions on my side either - that basing a > >> case that because a similar activity is specifically excluded and my > >> activity isn't excluded I'm OK is the stringest one to be making > >> against a license that mutliple times gives only one permitted usage > >> and excludes all others.
> > You are again only working on one of the points I've made. The whole > > thrust of my blog piece and the posts I've made here is: the license > > has to be taken as an entire document, not one or two points out of > > context. And as a whole, the document lists a number of things you may > > not do, but does not say 'these are examples only, and what is not > > permitted is not limited to this list'. It's a fairly standard bit of > > legalese that is easy enough to drop into any agreement, after all: > > "You may not use the software to, for example but not limited to, (a) > > blah blah blah..." That they chose not to include such a get-out > > clause is instructive.
> >>> The only thing that is clear to me, therefore, is that no-one is > >>> breaching any term of the license in downloading the software and > >>> using it for non-commercial, solo home learning purposes... or that, > >>> if they are in breach of the license, it's not clear-cut and obvious > >>> that they are. In those circumstances, absent the Corporation proving > >>> the point with a test case, there's really nothing to get worried > >>> about. Suggestions to the contrary remind me a lot of Microsoft's > >>> claim that Linux infringes numerous unspecified patents: worrying, > >>> frightening, causing concern... but fundamentally, mere FUD until the > >>> company proves otherwise. > >> As I did say in my blog, such was also my understanding - I was > >> prompted to go and re-read the license in another context - namely the > >> development part of the discussion, but not withstanding this the non- > >> commercial part of the license that I thought was there just isn't. If > >> suggesting that people read the license of software they download to > >> make sure that they can use it as they assume they can is FUD then I'm > >> probably guilty as charged.
> >> I also note that the license was amended in Sept 2005 (some years > >> after I last read it) just before the release of Oracle XE. That > >> product is most definitely and without any FUD free for home (and > >> indeed commercial use). I believe that you and I have similar views > >> about it's suitability for learning the dba role, but it's definitely > >> free to use without any restrictions on purpose (there are hardware > >> restrictions for those unfamiliar with the product).
> > And it's useless for learning Data Guard, RAC, ASM etc etc etc.
> > Learning of which, as I say, would be (could be, I suppose) a > > prerequisite for developing a prototype for it.
> >> And yes if Oracle were to amend the license to specifically allow > >> private study purposes I'd very much welcome it. Equally if they were > >> to post here, or preferably on an Oracle owned site a similar > >> clarification that showed I was wrong that would be fine. As I said in > >> my blog though in the end you'll need to read the relevant licenses > >> yourself and come to your own conclusions about what is permissible - > >> it should go without saying that anything I (or Howard and his lawyers > >> or anyone else on the thread) say here is opinion only.
> > And that's fine: 'opinion only'. If your original piece had said, > > 'there's an argument to be made...', fair enough. It doesn't though. > > It says, "[the claim that] you can download the software and learn for > > free is in fact not true". A bald statement of purported fact... when > > it's not fact at all, but your opinion (and one you're entitled to > > hold, naturally enough).
> > My rebuttal piece ends, "I say that's a misreading of the license and > > ignores context and clues contained elsewhere in the license that, > > read all together, make it clear home learning is a perfectly proper > > and legitimate use of the software." ...and the 'I say' at the start > > of that makes a bit of a difference, I'd suggest.
> > We are agreed, I think, that the license is an unholy mess and it > > needs to be clarified. We should be careful what we wish for, though: > > I would hate a license that allowed anything at all for XE, crippled > > as it is for would-be DBAs, and banned pretty much anything for the > > 'proper' software. But I suspect that's what we might inherit...
> In a practical sense I suspect the license does precisely what it is > intended to do. It gives Oracle the ability to make the software > available to a wide variety of individuals and organizations and at > the same time yank on the leash if something happens that they view > as an abuse.
> They can't put it out there with no license and they don't want their > legal beagles to tighten down the screws so tightly that we would all > feel obligated to get a legal opinion before going to OTN.
> Contracts are almost always a compilation of clauses; each one dealing > with avoiding a previously identified error in judgment. The way this > license reads my presumption would be that Oracle is perfectly happy > having a large stick in plain sight and doesn't have to pick it up > very often.
That might be a little too optimistic. Not only do they have
...
joel garry wrote: > That might be a little too optimistic. Not only do they have to deal > with previously identified errors, they have to deal with the fact > that it will be interpreted against whoever wrote it, as well as the > indeterminacy of what it really means until a judicial system congeals > the meaning against whatever narrow set of facts get it to a lawsuit.
Not really. There are only a handful of companies that would be willing to take it that far with Oracle. The cost of litigation and public relations would deter almost anyone from pushing the envelope.
One very revealing example is SAP openly admitting to theft of materials. If SAP wasn't willing to push it ... not many others would either? -- Daniel A. Morgan University of Washington damor...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond) Puget Sound Oracle Users Group www.psoug.org
On Jul 27, 3:02 pm, DA Morgan <damor...@psoug.org> wrote:
> joel garry wrote: > > That might be a little too optimistic. Not only do they have to deal > > with previously identified errors, they have to deal with the fact > > that it will be interpreted against whoever wrote it, as well as the > > indeterminacy of what it really means until a judicial system congeals > > the meaning against whatever narrow set of facts get it to a lawsuit.
> Not really. There are only a handful of companies that would be willing > to take it that far with Oracle. The cost of litigation and public > relations would deter almost anyone from pushing the envelope.
Wouldn't you know I only have a handful of customers... :-)
Now that you mention it, looking back, many of my employers have been embroiled in software lawsuits (not 'cause of me, thank goodness!). In one case, at my first paid job as a jr. programmer, the manager hired a fellow who had just been dumped by a software house. I wound up using him as a consultant at subsequent jobs, and almost went to work for him (I decided to be a unix/oracle guy instead). A dozen years later I was working for the software house, and the lawsuit was finally coming to trial. At one lunch, the president of the division mentioned the fellow, and I told him the fellow and I were good buds. Classic look on his face.
So I dunno, man. Every company I've ever worked for (besides mine) has lawyers, and they are rarely shrinking violets. It's difficult to succeed in the business world without a certain amount of aggressiveness. The lawyers necessarily must take a pessimistic view of contracts, and the business people must necessarily take an optimistic view of business, and the PR people have to put lipstick on this split-brained camel, and nobody wants to tell the emperor what they're doing to hit the numbers. What deterrence? Have you never heard an IS manager yell at an ISP when the data lines are down?
jg -- @home.com is bogus. "IBM appears to be the first big corporation to create formal guidelines governing virtual worlds": http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19982107/
|
