Richard Stallman writes: > I see two possibilities here that call for different actions:
> 1. Some Sun lawyer was overzealous. > 2. Sun is making a serious attempt to revive interface copyright. How did you arrive at this conclusion? I read it as putting the specification *document* under the same license as the software. The license refers to 'Specifications' (note capitalization) not 'specifications'. This is analogous to putting the documentation for a GPL program under the GPL. It does not prevent you from reading the 'Specifications' and then expressing the ideas in your own words. Note that I have replaced debian-private in the header with debian-legal. This does not belong on private, IMHO, and as it is cross-posted to debian-java there is no privacy issue. -- John Hasler This posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
