On 10/24/2010 07:38 PM, Casper Bang wrote:
It's probably the UI stuff that's costly and impairs their ability to
surprise/innovate. So how about d) they still maintain a private,
headless version requiring minimal effort on their part.
I suppose they need a license for that... Ok, maybe Oracle granted it
and we don't know, but I'd be puzzled about that. Apple first publicly
kicks Java in the teeth and then ask for a license allowing a private fork?
--
f.g.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java
Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en.
