Daniel Carrera wrote:
JBoss is just an example of their argument. Forking is fine with me too on open source stuff. However, the reason behind it ("because it runs on Java") does not sound right to me.
If they want to spend their time forking JBoss, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. Let them be.
I didn't mean it's a theft. And I was talking about Java here. This relates to people asking Sun to open source Java up in a forceful way (I think in business, big negative publicity is a forceful way) so it's open source. My argument is if you want to have it open source, then develop it. Don't force people to give it out for free (which is equivalent of theft, I think). I also didn't mean to go offtopic here, but the guy mention the whole reason behind this thing is a none-free Java. So, there's more than 1 way to skin a cat. You can fork OOo to make it not depend on Java, or you can write an implementation of Java, or just accept it. Was it a problem in the first place?
Forking is not theft. What RMS wants to do something that is permitted by OOo's license, and which has been done at least 3 times already.
Cheers, Daniel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
