On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Seth Arnold wrote: > * Alexander Hvostov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010302 18:23]: > > Those who believe Java and free software is a sad landscape are woefully > > unaware of reality... If this were the case, why does GNU seem to > > wholeheartedly support it? They even have a page devoted to GNU Java > > software! > > I think we may need to agree to disagree on this. Here is my example of > perfectly legitimate Java that still cannot be run on a system entirely > under the DFSG:
I guess we'll have to, because I _still_ don't agree. Read below... > Java application with Swing interface using RMI and Java.Security. > > Because the Build-Depends are only currently available through non-free > software this application will be relegated to non-free or contrib. (I > don't recall which, contrib is most likely.) Note operative keyword _currently_. As I keep trying to point out, this is a temporary problem, because of the way Sun created Java -- that is, they intended and encouraged clean-room reimplementations, and published detailed and specific specifications and a community process to insure that Java remains an open standard, if perhaps with a closed reference implementation. > I may very well be woefully unaware of reality -- it has happened > before. :) Please tell me how I can support Swing, RMI, and > Java.Security using only tools that satisfy the DFSG. :) > > Note also that Java2D, Java3D, etc., could be replaced for Swing, RMI, > java.security, above. I imagine similar stories could be told about > JINI. Java 2D is built into the Java 2 platform. Java 3D and the rest of the Java Media extension (javax.media.*) is designed to encourage clean-room reimplementations just like Java proper. I don't know about JINI, but I imagine it's the same way. Regards, Alex.
