The missing piece in ur analysis is that the blackdown group got a commercial
license to do the port. It is a license that sun did not give/grant to me when
i did the Java port to the Digital Alpha computers running Linux. Without that
license, or pre commitment to grant a license, you are wasting
On 2000-10-31 15:57:55 -0800, noisebrain wrote:
> I still disagree. The fact that source is available and can
> be changed allowed the blackdown group to port java to linux,
It may _not_ be changed without a different license. Read your
license please.
---
5. Source Code. Software may con
I still disagree. The fact that source is available and can
be changed allowed the blackdown group to port java to linux,
without which we wouldn't be on this list in the first place.
The linux java port is very significant to me and many others.
Yes, it's not the same as GNU, and not as desirab
At 09:27 AM 10/31/00 -0800, Calvin Austin wrote:
>Minor corrections, you can legally
>
>a) share source with other SCSL licensees for free, for example if
>you wanted to work in a porting team or use it for your research project.
>
>b) you can ship a binary if it passes the TCK test, there are
>n
Minor corrections, you can legally
a) share source with other SCSL licensees for free, for example if
you wanted to work in a porting team or use it for your research project.
b) you can ship a binary if it passes the TCK test, there are
no royalties but the test itself is not free.
regards
c
At 18:11 10/30/00 -0800, noisebrain wrote:
>This (the license) does not negate the fact that the source is available
>and can be changed.
actually it does. What can you (legally) do with that changed source?
Nothing. Can you give it to me in binary form? no. Can you give it to me
in source form?
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, [iso-8859-1] Martin Schröder wrote:
> On 2000-10-29 22:26:06 -0800, noisebrain wrote:
> > slightly open with it: the source *is* available, you *can* change,
>
> Since when? Last time I looked the source was "provided for
> educational value only", changing required an extr
I'd actually be content to see more developers committing to
making sure their software runs on Free versions of Java.
Start with Kaffe ... and then give GCJ a real push!
(All I'll say about JCP 2.0 just now is that I really don't
see how it can support truly Open processes, given all the
NDAs an
On 2000-10-29 22:26:06 -0800, noisebrain wrote:
> slightly open with it: the source *is* available, you *can* change,
Since when? Last time I looked the source was "provided for
educational value only", changing required an extra license.
Best regards
Martin
--
Martin Schr
Nice idea but for industry programmers this would only work
if there was an adequate alternative available. And if such
were available, there would not be a need for the petition!
The kaffe/gcj/classpath stuff is way behind sun java, and so is not
an alternative. (Interesting question: is it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
OK.
As some of you know I am fairly vocal WRT a reliable implementation of Java for
the Free Software community (something like GJC, Classpath, Kaffe). I created
a poll to get feedback from the Java development community to help make it
obvious to
11 matches
Mail list logo
