I've been playing around with FlexLM for Java on Linux, in anticipation of
my company using it as the license manager for our Java client-side
application.
I'm trying things out with Sun's Java SDK 1.3.1 on Suse 7.0 (Professional),
and can't get FlexLM working. It seems
Heeyeon Hwang wrote:
>
> blackdown's license isn't public domain liscence ?
Blackdown's license is controlled by the Sun license. It's not public
domain or open source.
Nathan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
blackdown's license isn't public domain liscence ?
ôèPÔ
ÿzf¢Ú#jöÿ)îÇúު笷øÚ½¯Û§$v'þàÂ+ajËç-¡ÿî˱ÊâmïÿNº.nWÿ
íiËdj¹ÿnVÚ0ú+
What exactly is the license for the jre part of the 1.2pre2 jdk?
LICENSE forbits redistribution of the jdk or any part of it. Correct? And when
will that change, i.e. when will we have a freely distributable java2?
Thanks in advance
Martin
--
Martin Schröder, [EMAIL
What kind of license is the blackdown java port?
I would love to be able to recommend to the organizers of Stampede Linux
to package your JDK port and have it as an install option.
--
Matthew "Synic" Kerr
Lanparty.com News Monkey
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Micr
> Uli Luckas writes:
> > Why can IBM publish an 'almost' ready java 2 VM and why can't the linux
> > porters?
> > Maybe they can and don't know it?
>
> I'm sorry, it clearly states in our license agreement (which I don't think I
> ca
Uli Luckas writes:
> Why can IBM publish an 'almost' ready java 2 VM and why can't the linux
> porters?
> Maybe they can and don't know it?
I'm sorry, it clearly states in our license agreement (which I don't think I
can quote) that we have to pass J
erly. The point wasn't that they
were getting it out sooner, but that they were publishing what was
termed a "almost" ready version--which should not be distributable
according to the license--the very reason we don't have access to the
Linux JDK1.2 port yet.
Unless of cou
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Uli Luckas wrote:
> Why can IBM publish an 'almost' ready java 2 VM and why can't the linux
> porters?
But how many people does IBM have working on the porting effort versus
the number of people working on hte Linux port? And how many people at
IBM are working on their po
Why can IBM publish an 'almost' ready java 2 VM and why can't the linux
porters?
Maybe they can and don't know it?
"... the vast majority of the Sun 1.2 JCK has run cleanly ..." is what
they say on their downlad page:
http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/formula.nsf/system/technologies/01F68D163B10330C8
On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Albrecht Kleine wrote:
> Hi,
The new license may be "less restricted" but it
is clearly not "more free".
> I've heard that it is possible to get
> JDK sources in a much relaxed way than earlier.
>
> I know, this is no lawyer
've heard that it is possible to get
> JDK sources in a much relaxed way than earlier.
>
> I know, this is no lawyer's list, but perhaps some
> of you can write about license compatibility to GPL?
>
> For example I've written the TYA JIT under clean room
> c
Hi,
I've heard that it is possible to get
JDK sources in a much relaxed way than earlier.
I know, this is no lawyer's list, but perhaps some
of you can write about license compatibility to GPL?
For example I've written the TYA JIT under clean room
conditions, but looking on JD
Apparently there will be changes in the license soon :
http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,375508,00.html
Alexander
On Sun, Dec 06, 1998 at 11:34:54PM -0800, Matt Welsh wrote:
>
> JDK 1.2 is out, and the license (http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/1.2/LICENSE)
> con
Matt Welsh wrote:
>
> JDK 1.2 is out, and the license (http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/1.2/LICENSE)
> contains the following language:
>
> > You may not publish or provide the results of any benchmark or comparison
> > tests run on Software to any third party without t
JDK 1.2 is out, and the license (http://java.sun.com/products/jdk/1.2/LICENSE)
contains the following language:
> You may not publish or provide the results of any benchmark or comparison
> tests run on Software to any third party without the prior written consent
> of Sun.
This is
e jewel set distribution.
> Am i violating the bin license, by doing so. I suppose if someone else
> were to package the bins, and submitted the RPM to redhat they would be
> safe, and unencumbered by the license.
> gatTAKE ME OFF YOUR MAIL LIST
the rpm to
> > redhat for their inclusion into the jewel set distribution.
> > Am i violating the bin license, by doing so. I suppose if someone else
> > were to package the bins, and submitted the RPM to redhat they would be
> > safe, and unencumbered by the license.
&g
on into the jewel set distribution.
> Am i violating the bin license, by doing so. I suppose if someone else
> were to package the bins, and submitted the RPM to redhat they would be
> safe, and unencumbered by the license.
If you use the bins, no matter who built them, you are encumbered. R
ir inclusion into the jewel set distribution.
> Am i violating the bin license, by doing so. I suppose if someone else
> were to package the bins, and submitted the RPM to redhat they would be
> safe, and unencumbered by the license.
An RPM of...what? What are you talking about? AFAIK ther
Bec of the limited space & bandwidth, I was thinking of providing a
redhat rpm for the various alpha platforms ( 21064, 21164, and the
21164a processors ). I'd like to create the rpm, and submit the rpm to
redhat for their inclusion into the jewel set distribution.
Am i violating the bi
Bec of the limited space & bandwidth, I was thinking of providing a
redhat rpm for the various alpha platforms ( 21064, 21164, and the
21164a processors ). I'd like to create the rpm, and submit the rpm to
redhat for their inclusion into the jewel set distribution.
Am i violating the bi
Ed Huott writes:
> The license states that binaries derived from the licensed (Sun's)
> source code cannot be distributed for a fee or with any product for
> which a fee is charged. It also states that the Licensed Software cannot
> be used "for commercial or productive&
Hi,
I was just reading the "Java(tm) Internal NonCommercial Use Source
License" from Sun in preparation for applying to be part of the
Java-Linux development environment and it raised a couple of questions
in my mind.
The license states that binaries derived from the licensed (Sun
thanks for the consideration, but i dont give out personel info to marketeers,
i'll try to do as much as i can to figure out whats wrong without the
license
gat
Subject:
Alpha-Linux JDK115 error
Resent-Date:
Sat, 29 Aug 1998 11:18:34 -0400
Resent
>I happened to have it handy :-)
>http://www.javasoft.com/nav/business/source_form.html
Interesting.. I'd always been under the impression that the source
license for Sun's Java had some NDA-like terms in it, including
provisions that would make it difficult for someone to deve
Steve,
I happened to have it handy :-)
http://www.javasoft.com/nav/business/source_form.html
..darcy
27 matches
Mail list logo
