The original statement I made was 1) source for free, 2) JCK not so free, and 3)
distribution not so free.
the issue with the majority of ur correspondence, was ur inability to understand
that u cannot do a port if ur not allowed to modify the '.java' source code. U
apparently misled some folks into believing that I was deliberately altering the
core API so I can do an alpha port. Shame on u.
U Apparently did not understand that returning a 64 bit long from a 'c' routine,
and passing it to the JVM will truncate as it is stored into an .java int. I'm
sorry it took so long into explaining these porting facts to u. May be u can
explain why it took so long, as there appears to be no reason at all as to why i
should have bothered explaining at all.
As for THIS correspondence that Mr. Sinz has begun, which is a totally different
new discussion topic than porting Java onto an alpha. This particular topic
happens to deal with providing future 'alpha' ports to the linux community.
I have also signed NDA's.
Yes, they can drop the 'commercial' license. Just tell Sun "no thanks". Of course
that would mean that there wont be any Java/Linux/Ports for the Linux/Intel
community. Cant imagine what kinda hell that would make for
java-linux-porting@blackdown, as well as for sun. Maybe as a side effect they will
bring back the Non-Commercial licenses term back for EVERYONE. Maybe they'll just
drop linux.
I'd like to think that my posting of the Binaries, as well as the diffs would help
bring back the Non-Commercial license, but I just dont think so. There is no
requirement that I even post my port to the internet, nor share my diffs with
anyone. public/private correspondence between porters regarding java source was to
be made by diffs only, and only if they chose to. Again this is just another side
issue, that u have brung up - May be to sway from the real issue at hand, which I
can only summarize as being "non-commercial licenses for jdk1.2 are dead". BTW, not
that it much matters now, but I did post the diffs to the JDK1.2 sometime in
december, 1998.
I'd like to think of myself as a public java-linux porter at blackdown ( please
note that there is no hyphen between linux & porter ) . I'd also like to believe
that when i do a port, I am doing it just for the alpha/linux community. I'm sorry
u didnt understand those points.
I'd like all correspondence with porting issues to be made in the public light for
public scrutiny and/or ridicule. Private correspondence just helps to hide
pertinent issues, and fallacies in ones argument Ergo this correspondence will
also be made public. If u wish to stop, then just stop corresponding. I wouldn't
mind a single bit.
Jeff Galyan wrote:
> All right, this is getting *WAY* old. George, I've been replying to you
> privately to try to keep this from spamming up the list, but you insist
> on adding additional lists with every post. No one is impressed with
> this tantrum-throwing on your part.
>
> Michael S. points out that you've been invited to join the Blackdown
> team, and you have declined the invitation, for whatever reason. It
> doesn't matter what your reasoning is, as the end result is the same in
> any case. Now you're accusing them of hiding behind the NDA they were
> required by Sun to sign. How are they hiding? They have a contractual
> obligation to Sun *not* to do full source releases. Java is not and
> never has been "open source" - the current source release is only
> sort-of "open source", that is, you have to agree to a license, and part
> of the terms of that "Community" license is that you will not share the
> source with anyone who is not also a licensee. Now, anyone can be a
> licensee for personal, research and educational purposes. The Blackdown
> team *can't* "drop the commercial license" as you suggest, but they
> *can* still post the diffs, since the diffs are useless without the full
> Sun sources - which, again, *anyone* can obtain.
>
> Incidentally, Michael S. comments that you have refused to post your
> diffs for your previous ports. Is that true? Surely you read the clause
> in the previous non-commercial source license which states that you
> *must* post your diffs? And, please don't send another "you don't know
> what you're talking about" message to umpteen lists - I've been a
> licensee since 1.1 FCS. And, yes, I *have* read the Blackdown diffs, as
> well as the full Sun sources.
>
> This whole thread went from "Is it permissible to change the size of a
> Java int on a given platform?" to "Waaa! See how badly I'm being
> mistreated by the evil commercial software company!". Deal with the fact
> that since ints are defined to be 32-bit per the Java Language
> Specification, you are not allowed to change that size just because you
> have some unknown aversion to using longs where you should.
>
> Again, you're implying that Sun and the Blackdown team somehow "owe"
> you, but you can't give any *real* examples of why, nor can you give any
> *real* examples of why an int *must* be 64-bits. If you *can* show that
> a Java int *absolutely MUST* be 64-bits, then file a bug with Sun.
>
> Can we PLEASE just get over this petty (and totally unrelated to the
> original issue) garbage?
>
> --Jeff
>
> Uncle George wrote:
> >
> > I'd much perfer that you private porting club become public. Ur hiding behind
> > the NDA, just makes u appear to be in the marketeering pockets os SUN. This
> > can be exemplified by the way that the JDK 1.2 release announcement was made
> > by SUN before any announcements on the normal channels at blackdown. U'r
> > exclusive sun/java-linux-porting allience, appears to me to be outside of the
> > linux community ethical standards. I'm sorry but thats how i feel. And the
> > blackdown java-linux-porting group has done nothing at all to change this, but
> > has done quite a bit to re-assure me that NOT Joining was the right thing to
> > do.
> > Can I presume thet the Death of the Non-Commercial Licensing for the JDK 1.2
> > was in part because ur private porting group signed a commercial licensing
> > agreement with sun.? Or maybe you folks dont realize what u did. I Guess its
> > no different that what the movie "BRAVEHEART" depicted when *some* of the
> > scotish nobility sold out their country to the king of england.
> >
> > As for Joining, historically speeking, when the porting efforts was quite
> > young, I did in fact do a "subscribe java-linux-porting" once. It was reject
> > by Karl Asha, because I didn't provide a piece of code from the JDK source -
> > to demonstrate that I had aquired a sun license. Some discussion ensued about
> > the necessisity of this, and chose not to join. group philosophy was quite
> > different also then.
> >
> > offers to Joining only came recently, after many years of doing my porting
> > without any assistence by your group. Something was up, only later did I find
> > out that your group aquired/signed the commercial license to port 1.2. I
> > suppose it was just coincidence, i dont think so I also suppose having my
> > diffs would make your private porting to the 'alpha' fairly easy ( I say
> > fairly because I do not know if the JCK is neutral with respect to 32/64bit
> > issues ).
> >
> > When I do my alpha ports, I feel that I am doing it for the Alpha Linux
> > community. I'm just not ready to work for Sun guised as a linux porter.
> >
> > So How about dropping the Sun commercial license in favor of giving everyone
> > in the linux community an equal opportunity at porting.
> >
> > gat
> >
> > Does anyone know how to contact "/.". I'd like to publish this
> >
> > BTW, u do know that NON-COMM licenses for 1.2 has stopped?
> > Thanks for the encouragement to take the next step. I have tried to refrain in
> > doing so. I dont think this next step is what u expected.
> >
> > Michael Sinz wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 22 Jun 1999 07:01:05 -0400, Uncle George wrote:
> > >
> > > >1) I am not a member of java-linux-porting@blackdown. They are a private
> > > > porting club.
> > >
> > > You have been invited to be part of the effort. The "private" part
> > > comes from the fact that we had to sign NDA/Contracts so that we could
> > > start working on the JDK 1.2/Java 2 code. Before that (JDK 1.1.x) you
> > > were also invited to join and you had also declined.
> > >
> > > You have also declined to post your Alpha DIFFs such that people like
> > > myself could compile the code for my Alpha CPU optimizations. (And maybe
> > > link with Motif rather than LessTif)
> > >
> > > >2) I have been porting the Javasoft's non-commercial JDK source for a
> > > > number of years.. But just for for alpha/linux.
> > >
> > > Yes, and Alpha owners/users are happy that you have done so.
> > >
> > > At this point I would say the next step is up to you. You may join the
> > > porting group (no cost, just some NDA stuff) and continue to have your
> > > work be of benefit to all Linux/Alpha users. Or you can post your diffs
> > > (which is still legal) and let each interested user download the Sun source
> > > and do their own build (yes, this is non-trivial due to the bootstrap
> > > requirements, but again, your work would be made available to others)
> > >
> > > Maybe someone with a license could even make the compiled port available.
> > > (Assuming there is someone who has the time and license to do so)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
