Mikhail Loenko wrote: > On 2/17/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I meant it's copyright / license block comment. >> >> Same reason every other files does. > > That is not a source code,
Sure it is > BTW corresponding RI's files do not have copyrights. >> ...and why drl.policy? any objection to changing it back? > > I'm not sure it is legal to use 'java' unless it is explicitely > required by the spec. what? like all those .java files? > 'java.security' is required by the spec. > > How about 'drl.policy'? No Regards, Tim > Thanks, > Mikhail > >> Regards, >> Tim >> >> Mikhail Loenko wrote: >>> java.security also does not have a license... >>> >>> Why do you think they have to have a license? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Mikhail >>> >>> On 2/17/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> why has our permissions policy file (in jre/lib/security) gone from >>>> java.policy -> drl.policy, lost its license etc. ? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Tim >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >>>> IBM Java technology centre, UK. >>>> >> -- >> >> Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >> IBM Java technology centre, UK. >> > -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK.
