It's not too late to change to "org.gnu" if one has the will.
After all, Sun changed from "com.sun.java.swing" to "javax.swing".
The change caused some disruption, but was a welcome one.
Using "org.gnu" would also impress Java developers outside the
Free Software fold. Java developers like the naming standards that
Sun has initiated and consider the system to be A Good Thing. It's
not a Sun-proprietary system, after all, just a good system that Sun
happened to initiate.
I know that no major catastrophe will result if the "gnu" prefix is
retained. It's just that if the GNU packages follow a different
convention from what the larger body of Java developers is used to,
it would needlessly irritate many of the good Java developers it is meant
for,
and perhaps hinder the adoption of Classpath and contributions to it.
I wouldn't like to see that happen for a silly reason that is easily fixed.
So come on, guys, a little standardisation wouldn't hurt ;-).
Ganesh C. Prasad
Internet Development Services
EDS Australia
Level 5, 5 Hunter Street, Sydney NSW 2000
Tel: +61-2-9378 7568
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wes Biggs [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Monday, September 13, 1999 10:16 AM
> To: Thomas J Lukasik
> Cc: Aaron M. Renn; Chris Toshok; Prasad, Ganesh C; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Congratulations
>
> Thomas J Lukasik wrote:
>
> > Wes,
> >
> > You are obviously unaware of the document at:
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/software/java/why-gnu-packages.txt
>
> I'm quite aware of it.
>
> > Allow me to quote from it:
>
> Really, you'd have to ask Per for permission, but we'll assume, on the
> basis of
> his publicly stated opinions, that he won't go after you for copyright
> infringement. :-)
>
> > "There is no measurable benefit of using org.gnu instead of gnu. I
> refuse
> > to be concerned over anybody who might use gnu as a package prefix
> without
> > co-ordinating with gnu.org - that's their problem, not ours."
> >
> > What does the statement "..that's there problem not ours." say about
> > arrogance and ownership of 'GNU'?
>
> A "refusal to be concerned" is not a statement of ownership. I read it
> the
> other way -- go ahead and put your package under "gnu.*", if it causes a
> conflict, you figure it out. Per and I, we don't care one way or the
> other.
> Apathy's not the same as arrogance.
>
> You're entitled to your own opinion, and you're entitled to use "gnu.*" or
> "org.gnu.*" as you wish. Last time I checked, no one had filed a lawsuit
> for
> breach of Java package namespace. If you're paranoid, encrypt and seal
> your
> JAR.
>
> Wes
>
