On Tue, 2008-07-01 at 11:42 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> Hmm, I'm not sure that explanations should be punted to unfree
> documentation. If the logic is so obscure that it needs a
> reference, then it perhaps should be spelled out.
Here's the patch for Integer. I have also added a Mauve test.
-
Christian Thalinger wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 10:21 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>> I thought you already had :D
>
> No, but I did now.
> diff -u -3 -p -r1.26 Long.java
> --- java/lang/Long.java 18 Apr 2008 21:00:11 - 1.26
> +++ java/lang/Long.java 1 Jul 2008 08:11:42 -
> @@
On Fri, 2008-06-27 at 10:21 +0100, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> I thought you already had :D
No, but I did now.
- twisti
---
Index: ChangeLog
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/classpath/classpath/ChangeLog,v
retrieving revision 1.9667
diff -u
2008/6/27 Christian Thalinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 18:45 +0200, Christian Thalinger wrote:
>> I guess this email came from the Long.signum() discussion we had today
>
> Ehh... will someone actually fix this bug? Otherwise I'll do it in the
> Hackers Delight/OpenJDK way.
>
>
On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 18:45 +0200, Christian Thalinger wrote:
> I guess this email came from the Long.signum() discussion we had today
Ehh... will someone actually fix this bug? Otherwise I'll do it in the
Hackers Delight/OpenJDK way.
- twisti
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
2008/6/25 dalibor topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Well I suppose the question is more 'how much OpenJDK is needed to be
substantially derived?'
It's hard to draw a minimum requirement line, so I guess it'll be a
case-by-case decision, when necessary.
I think a the major
2008/6/25 dalibor topic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Andrew John Hughes wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, such suppositions aren't worth much in legal terms (and
>> let's get the obvious IANAL disclaimer in here before I say any more).
>> As we discussed a little on IRC earlier today, it's actually quite a
>>
Il giorno mar, 24/06/2008 alle 22.18 +0100, Andrew John Hughes ha
scritto:
Hi Andrew!
> both the Classpath and OpenJDK codebases of late, as have Mark, Mario,
> Christian and probably others
I don't, when I change code in OpenJDK I do this blindly :)
On the other hand, you have my word (legally
dalibor topic wrote:
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
Dalibor, could you give us something from Sun's side on this issue?
I'm not sure on which one:
* whether combining a GPLd VM with OpenJDK class library would be
sufficiently derived
as far ar the OCTLA goes?
Yes, please see the GB minutes
Hi Andrew,
On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 11:32 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> > So concretely. If you find a bug in GNU Classpath, it is OK if you test
> > against some other implementation and see what it does (run various
> > programs and tests). It isn't OK to go study the other implementation
> > code t
Robert Schuster wrote:
Unfortunately, such suppositions aren't worth much in legal terms (and
let's get the obvious IANAL disclaimer in here before I say any more).
If that is the problem couldn't we get an official stance from Sun that
prevents that? Something saying: "if some part of code
Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-06-25 at 11:32 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>>> So concretely. If you find a bug in GNU Classpath, it is OK if you test
>>> against some other implementation and see what it does (run various
>>> programs and tests). It isn't OK to go study the other implementatio
Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 23:30 +0200, Roman Kennke wrote:
>> IANAL either, but from my understanding this is not the problem. At
>> least not for contributors. The problem is copyright, and this is
>> regardless of the license, proprietary or free. If I look at Sun's code
>> an
Andrew John Hughes wrote:
Unfortunately, such suppositions aren't worth much in legal terms (and
let's get the obvious IANAL disclaimer in here before I say any more).
As we discussed a little on IRC earlier today, it's actually quite a
ridiculous situation that GNU Classpath and OpenJDK are jus
Hi,
On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 23:30 +0200, Roman Kennke wrote:
> IANAL either, but from my understanding this is not the problem. At
> least not for contributors. The problem is copyright, and this is
> regardless of the license, proprietary or free. If I look at Sun's code
> and then go and implement
Hi.
Andrew John Hughes schrieb:
> I find myself asking the same questions, and this is why I raised the
> questions. I don't have all the answers either, and I'm sorry if the
> original mail came across like I was dictating a particular position.
> That wasn't the intention. FWIW, yes, both you a
On 24/06/2008, Roman Kennke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As we discussed a little on IRC earlier today, it's actually quite a
> > ridiculous situation that GNU Classpath and OpenJDK are just about
> > under the same license, but because of that 'or later' clause, they
> > are incompatible.
>
> As we discussed a little on IRC earlier today, it's actually quite a
> ridiculous situation that GNU Classpath and OpenJDK are just about
> under the same license, but because of that 'or later' clause, they
> are incompatible.
IANAL either, but from my understanding this is not the problem. At
; > approach we had
> > when it was proprietary. When working on GNU Classpath, we still need
> > to be careful
> > about cross-pollination between codebases, even though the OpenJDK
> > class libraries
> > are under (nearly) the same license.
> >
>
on't look if working on the same code'
> > approach we had
> > when it was proprietary. When working on GNU Classpath, we still need
> > to be careful
> > about cross-pollination between codebases, even though the OpenJDK
> > class libraries
> &g
need
> to be careful
> about cross-pollination between codebases, even though the OpenJDK
> class libraries
> are under (nearly) the same license.
>
> This also applies for other class libraries, namely Harmony's.
So where is the boundary? I already spent significant time st
ary. When working on GNU Classpath, we still need
> to be careful
> about cross-pollination between codebases, even though the OpenJDK
> class libraries
> are under (nearly) the same license.
>
> This also applies for other class libraries, namely Harmony's.
I guess this em
on between codebases, even though the OpenJDK
class libraries
are under (nearly) the same license.
This also applies for other class libraries, namely Harmony's.
Thanks,
--
Andrew :-)
Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://
23 matches
Mail list logo
