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, BTW corresponding RI's files do not have copyrights.
We don't care - we put it on all resources. See our generated HTML
pages, for example.
...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.
'java.security' is required by the spec.
How about 'drl.policy'?
s/drl/java/
I'll sit by my mailbox waiting for the letter from Sun legal so no one
else has to worry :)
geir
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.
