On Tue, Dec 07, 1999 at 06:28:29PM -0500, Jacob Nikom wrote:
> But it does matter how it was claimed. If the work was done by
> Inprise it is one thing, if it is only relabeling of Blackdown
> code, it is another.
I was speaking from a legal standpoint. According to Sun's brain-dead
license, they own all changes to derivative works. I agree that
credit should be given where it is due.
>
> This is the text:
> "Inprise and Sun Microsystems have taken a big step toward
> maintaining open, standards-based network computing architectures
> that utilize technologies like Linux and the Java 2 platform,"
> said Dale Fuller, Interim CEO and President of Inprise."
>
>
> I think it is the drawback of the "Open Source" model. Technically,
> you can take any code and release it as yours after few changes.
>
> It is interesting what guys from Inprise think about it?
>
I think it is actually a drawback to the marketing departments not
knowing much of anything on what they create press releases out of.
Having worked at a place that was always trying to pull a press
release out of thin air, I've seen how the most innocent comment or
piece of fluff can be made to sound like ground breaking news. I
seriously doubt they meant to not hand over credit. I'm sure the
problem was that nobody told the marketing droids to specifically say
most of the Linux changes in the JDK were made by Blackdown.
BAPper
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
