Hi, On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 12:21 -0500, Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote: > Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > AFAIK, Eclipse uses only the standard Java API > > as published by Sun, and will run equally well with any implementation > > of said interface. > > Great -- which implementation does Debian ship it with? That's all > that really matters.
Both runtimes in question (as most free runtimes) are based on the GNU Classpath core class library (which is the same as libgcj which comes with GCC and provides the runtime library for the gij interpreter and gcj ahead of time compiler). It is distributed under the terms mentioned here: http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html There have been questions about how this license precisely interacts when combined with other code (like the LGPL in the sablevm case and the GPL in the kaffe case). The FSF wants to make the intent of the GNU Classpath distribution terms as clear as possible and has setup a GNU Classpath license clarification wiki were people can add suggestions or concerns about the current wording (if any): http://www.gnu.org/licensing/classpath/ > > This whole discussion is something between ridiculous and hilarious, > > definitely not useful. > > If it causes even one person to understand that the generation or > transportation of a copy is what matters, and not technical > workarounds, I'll consider it useful. I believe this pissing contest between the sablevm and kaffe packagers is a big waste of time. There are obviously important issues to be worked out like the ASL and GPL compatibility and making sure the interpretations and intend of the various licenses are clear. But I don't believe the best way to do that is by constantly claiming someone else work is "illegal" and/or "a complete waste of time". Cheers, Mark
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
