El viernes, 19 marz, 2004, a las 21:42 Europe/Madrid, Antonio Gallardo
escribió:
But if you
start using some features locked to an specific OS, ...
...the terrorists have already won :)
Now, C# is reasonably free with mono, provided you're clever enough to
avoid .NET classes lock-in. Miguel de
Santiago Gala wrote:
In the client side, I saw a comment about modern Flash apps (more and
more common), which said something like: Those Flash apps are like what
java Applets should have been.
+1. We ported a collection of casino games we'd written in applets into
Flash 5 movies, and Flash
I'm not sure about the quality and status of ikvm (java to c# assembly
compiler), but some people (I think it was Miguel in Malaga) reported
to me informally it was able to run tomcat. Any clue?
None. But I have known the author for years. Very talented guy, and knows
the bytecode level of
On Mar 25, 2004, at 6:18 AM, David N. Welton wrote:
Well, according to this, the 'discussion' is over:
http://news.osdir.com/article491.html
For this year, I think.
I think the best thing that ASF community members can do for now,
until the next news flareup, is in blogs, conversations etc, is
Geir Magnusson Jr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Costin had some good suggestions for working deeper - like ensuring
code here works on the OSS implementations (which is really just a
form of compatibility testing...)
That seems like something that would be beneficial without a huge
amount of
On Mar 18, 2004, at 12:18 PM, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
sheepish
I wasn't subscribed to community@ until now, so if there's something
there that wasn't xposted to general@, let me know...
/sheepish
http://nagoya.apache.org/eyebrowse/SummarizeList?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Beware: content is public.
Costin Manolache wrote:
Serge Knystautas wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Key ASF individuals are joining these discussions, on weblogs and
various discussion forums. But the ASF as a whole is silent.
In lieu of forming a statement for the ASF as a whole, what about
organizing/encouraging/guiding
On Mar 18, 2004, at 7:10 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
Serge Knystautas wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Key ASF individuals are joining these discussions, on weblogs and
various discussion forums. But the ASF as a whole is silent.
In lieu of forming a statement for the ASF as a
At 01:46 PM 3/18/2004, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
If you read the open letters there is clear they suggest an full GPL
license, because if not maybe it can end (intentionally) in a fork.
As Noel said already - GPL does not inhibit forking. The license does
prohibit adopting the same name for a
Noel J. Bergman dijo:
And if they do things that impinge on their own patents, the GPL
says that you cannot use their code, even though it is under the GPL.
This means MS cannot do fork by using own patents and redistribute
without breaking the GPL license, this is the poison pill, right?
Hi William:
William A. Rowe, Jr. dijo:
At 01:46 PM 3/18/2004, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
If you read the open letters there is clear they suggest an full GPL
license, because if not maybe it can end (intentionally) in a fork.
As Noel said already - GPL does not inhibit forking. The license does
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
On Mar 18, 2004, at 7:10 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
Costin Manolache wrote:
Serge Knystautas wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Key ASF individuals are joining these discussions, on weblogs and
various discussion forums. But the ASF as a whole is silent.
In lieu of forming a
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
ie: MS can see the forking as a way to break the Java platform. They
already tried to make it some years ago and failed. But make some harm.
Even Sun sued them for this.
The scenario is not easy:
If Java is divided, we lose.
I respectfully disagree. I think (some of) what
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
What about starting by making sure Apache java projects _do_ work
with the 2 open source JVMs that are mentioned in the
article ? That would be a statement, much better than we like open
source java, but our software doesn't run on it because it doesn't
really matter.
Serge Knystautas dijo:
Antonio Gallardo wrote:
I see many wrong here. Just to refresh the mind:
http://news.com.com/2100-1001_3-225523.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1001_3-227105.html
http://news.com.com/2100-1001_3-251401.html
At the core of these discussions is that Microsoft wanted to
I suspect that getting a consensus from the ASF members, much less the
community at large, as to a stance on open source Java will be pretty
difficult. The ASF is made up of individuals, not a small number of
which are intimately involved with each of the major JVM providers.
I do think that
Brian McCallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I suspect that getting a consensus from the ASF members, much less
the community at large, as to a stance on open source Java will be
pretty difficult. The ASF is made up of individuals, not a small
number of which are intimately involved with each
On Mar 18, 2004, at 9:49 AM, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
I have just a question: If Java goes GPL (as suggested by many opinion
writters), it can clash with the ASF license? I remember discussions
about
the viral nature of (L)GPL in Java language. Then if Java goes
(L)GPL it
will infect the java
Serge Knystautas wrote:
Leo Simons wrote:
Key ASF individuals are joining these discussions, on weblogs and
various discussion forums. But the ASF as a whole is silent.
In lieu of forming a statement for the ASF as a whole, what about
organizing/encouraging/guiding people who want to
What about starting by making sure Apache java projects _do_ work with
the 2 open source JVMs that are mentioned in the article ?
Which two? I've had a thought to try testing James under gcj at some point.
RedHat has already done a whole bunch of Java-based Apache projects with
gcj.
sheepish
I wasn't subscribed to community@ until now, so if there's something
there that wasn't xposted to general@, let me know...
/sheepish
More inline :
On Mar 18, 2004, at 11:21 AM, Leo Simons wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
the intention is to get involved snip/ really wanted to keep quiet
Brian McCallister dijo:
On Mar 18, 2004, at 9:49 AM, Antonio Gallardo wrote:
I have just a question: If Java goes GPL (as suggested by many opinion
writters), it can clash with the ASF license? I remember discussions
about
the viral nature of (L)GPL in Java language. Then if Java goes
If you read the open letters there is clear they suggest an full GPL
license, because if not maybe it can end (intentionally) in a fork.
There is nothing in the GPL that talks about a fork. The argument for Sun
to license their JVM under the GPL is that then Sun would be the only one
who could
David N. Welton wrote:
Brian McCallister [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I suspect that getting a consensus from the ASF members, much less
the community at large, as to a stance on open source Java will be
pretty difficult. The ASF is made up of individuals, not a small
number of which are intimately
24 matches
Mail list logo
