On Saturday 01 November 2003 20:08, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
E.L. Willighagen (Egon) wrote:
The big question seems to come done to:
What part of Java is library and what part is language?
It seems to me that at least the syntax *and* java.lang *is* the
language... Thus as long as you
E.L. Willighagen (Egon) wrote:
On Saturday 01 November 2003 20:08, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
E.L. Willighagen (Egon) wrote:
The big question seems to come done to:
What part of Java is library and what part is language?
It seems to me that at least the syntax *and* java.lang *is* the
language...
Hi Debian-legal, Egon and Dalibor,
The opinion of debian-legal would be highly appreciated by all involved in this
long running thread of discussion about the implications of:
1- Kaffe being licensed under the GNU GPL.
2- Kaffe's class library being licensed under the GNU GPL.
3- Differeing
Hi Etienne,
let's have some non-lawyerish philosophical licensing discussion fun
again ;)
My first issue is with the subject line: Kaffe uses plain GPL, not some
special 'Kaffe's GPL'. It should be FSF's GPL, if you'd want to
attribute it someone special.
Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Hi
On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 07:51:37PM +0100, Dalibor Topic wrote:
My first issue is with the subject line: Kaffe uses plain GPL, not some
special 'Kaffe's GPL'. It should be FSF's GPL, if you'd want to
attribute it someone special.
I read Kaffe's (GPL and GPL incompatible Java software), not
5 matches
Mail list logo
