-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Guillaume Rousse wrote: > Actually, it is a grey area. Unless things changed since my > participation in JPackage project, no one could tell if distributing > software under Sun Binary License (as the JDKs) if legal or not, and Sun > never dared to answer our questions. My own understanding was that it > was legal, but there was no consensus among project contributors. So I > wouldn't say we can't distribute JDK legally, rather than we don't know.
This has been my understanding as well. The license says something about bundling a JRE with your product, where JPackage's product certainly exists. The same may apply to the JDK as some software (e.g., tomcat4) does need a JDK to function. > The real reason was to avoid duplicating existing work already done by > JPackage project in rpm world. This is true, but what would you like to do? Should PLF simply repackage the current Sun jdk? This isn't much work, simply a `rpmbuild --rebuild' command. It creates a problem, though, as I do not see JPackage endorsing PLF (officially), so *still* users may have trouble finding a JDK. - -- Sincerely, David Walluck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDlalNarJDwJ6gwowRAq8mAJ414nNAS8eg85HLaWZ0mtCf91OJ8QCZAfn0 VhvBrxrLdmkNKcEkMrF8+sk= =PaDJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ PLF-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://www.zarb.org/mailman/listinfo/plf-discuss
