Nacho G. Mac Dowell wrote:
Hi all,
Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
a) Having a copy of src.jar on a computer as long as you never
viewed or edited the contents of the file.
How many people on this list have NEVER looked (not edited) at, say,
java.lang.String?
Many, I'd think. To avoid the temptation, you should simply delete
src.jar from your computer.
If you want people with extensive java knowledge to contribute to
Harmony this requirement seems like a dead-end to me. Not for the VM
internals, but for the class libraries. I suppose that, at least, any
curious java developer using eclipse (I don't know about other IDE's)
has. Something else would be pretending no one ever looked at src.jar...
There actually are people that have not looked at Sun's code out there.
Everyone coming new to the language, for example.
Many people don't see the need to look at non-free software in general,
and chances are pretty slim that anyone I know will ever get that bored
and out of reading material to accept the 'Read only' license, for an
example of a very funny non-free software license.
Don't flame me, please. I'm just trying to address one of my major
concerns about Harmony. If this is a MUST requirement, then Sun did a
great job when releasing src.jar...
The current licensing terms of a popular non-free implementation(SCSL,
JRL, JIUL, JDL), despite all the various FAQs, and enthousiastic
statements by some marketing staff at the respective company, do not
address the issues at hand in a clear enough fashion.
See http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/classpath/2005-05/msg00014.html
for one of many, many problems with the JRL, for example.
Yes, a certain company's legal team is pretty good at not helping what
they perceive as potential threats to their status. If that is an itch
you need to scratch, get in touch with *them* and get it fixed, as they
are the only ones who can.
cheers,
dalibor topic
