On 13/11/06, Steve Vinoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It's unfortunately GPL, which to the best of my knowledge means it won't help us here (see [1]).
I don't understand what you are getting at. I think GPL is a good move. I understand about [1]. This is the platform/runtime. We run Apache Qpid Java on the propretary Java runtime now, don't we? In particular, I thought this move might make RedHat think differently about focusing on Java technology... When the GPL license for JRE was just a rumour, Javalobby sent a newsletter about that. Here's an bit of that. The link to the "10 common misunderstandings about the GPL" is probably worth a read. GPL is so open source, in fact, that many are concerned to use GPL-based packages in their own technology. The myth is that if you use any GPL technology in your product, then your product will be "infected" by legal provisions in the GPL, and you will be required to open source your technology under the same terms as the GPL technology you incorporated. While it is true that GPL has provisions that may have consequences for your GPL-based products, it is not nearly as simple as the viral infection myth that appears to have originated within corridors of a certain software giant located in Redmond, Washington. For an excellent overview of this issue and several related issues, I highly recommend the article "10 common misunderstandings about the GPL <http://www.dzone.com/r/6566>" by Bruce Byfield. If it is true that GPL will govern the core Java platform, then you'll most likely want to have a better sense of what that may mean to you. Cheers, Steve.
